If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I agree this was a "height" incident, not "location" incident.
And height, aka altitude, is determined autonomously by the onboard barometric pressure and radalt indications, and therefore cannot have been manipulated by the Russians. Does this mean we're done here?
Where is your proof that there was a fake NDB? The location of the aircraft was perfectly consistent with where it should have been.
Also, can you please show us which approach the crew was actually conducting - was it a radar, NDB, or GPS approach? Does the Polish military perform constant descent approaches, or do they do "dive and drive", the technique that has been essentially removed from all airline operations?
And height, aka altitude, is determined autonomously by the onboard barometric pressure and radalt indications, and therefore cannot have been manipulated by the Russians. Does this mean we're done here?
So the fact that there was a fake NDB and that the Russians doctored the CVR/FDR means nothing? They just did it to amuse themselves for they had nothing better to do? At least show some integrity and acknowledge that these two issues are major problems.
Where is your proof that there was a fake NDB? The location of the aircraft was perfectly consistent with where it should have been.
Also, can you please show us which approach the crew was actually conducting - was it a radar, NDB, or GPS approach? Does the Polish military perform constant descent approaches, or do they do "dive and drive", the technique that has been essentially removed from all airline operations?
You did not read my #1208 post? The proof is rock solid. If you don't think so, show me the error in it. Otherwise accept it.
They used 2 NDB with markers + radar, and GPS. There was a difference between the NDB course indicators and GPS, and I don't know which one they followed, but they monitored both.
I cannot speak for Polish military, but this was not a dive and drive approach and I doubt they use it unless in emergency.
So the fact that there was a fake NDB and that the Russians doctored the CVR/FDR means nothing? They just did it to amuse themselves for they had nothing better to do? At least show some integrity and acknowledge that these two issues are major problems.
The fact...!?
Northwester, this is conjecture on your part, not fact. At least we need to agree on that much.
But, assuming for a moment it is true, then let me throw the question back at you. Why would the Russians go to all this trouble when they knew that the highly trained Polish flight crew would be on a non-precision, visual approach to the runway, closely monitoring instruments and ready to execute a go-around at MDA if the runway was not sighted? Why? To amuse themselves for they had nothing better to do? At least show some integrity and acknowledge that this conjecture lacks motive altogether.
Well - since I am too lazy to re-read all the previous 62 pages of this thread, could somebody please tell me again: which kind of approach were they doing? An NDB approach? A ground controlled radar approach? A GPS approach?
Oh - just some further information on that: Neither approach is considered a precision approach, so the MDA would be pretty high. But even if it WAS a precision approach (ILS Cat 1 or 2 - for which the airport at Smolensk wasn't equipped), you would go around if you don't see the runway at decision height and you don't continue on down unless you are on a suicide mission.
I'm certainly no expert on matters military, however I've never heard of a 2 NDB, GPS AND Radar approach.
I've heard of EITHER NDB or GPS or Radar, or either NDB or GPS with radar monitoring - but thats all.
So, which was it? They're all different approaches, with different tracking and altitude requirements.
It is, to some end, a moot point, because all three of them shouldn't have led them to an accident given the terrain - but we can discuss that more once you know which type of approach they were actually doing.
And, your post 1208 proves abolutely NOTHING. It shows there may be a discrepency that needs to be examined, it certainly does not prove there was a fake NDB!
If you think that what you have "discovered" is sufficient evidence for anything, there really is no point having this discussion.
I'm certainly no expert on matters military, however I've never heard of a 2 NDB, GPS AND Radar approach.
I've heard of EITHER NDB or GPS or Radar, or either NDB or GPS with radar monitoring - but thats all.
So, which was it? They're all different approaches, with different tracking and altitude requirements.
It is, to some end, a moot point, because all three of them shouldn't have led them to an accident given the terrain - but we can discuss that more once you know which type of approach they were actually doing.
AFAIK, a two NDB approach was the only approved approach for that runway.
The plate was posted here dozens of pages earlier (surely someone would be not as lazy as me and post the link), and it was very strange by Western terms: Being a non-precision approach, it showed a constant slope descent, and MDA of 100m AGL (which looks low for an NDB approach) and the MDA looked more like what a DH looks like in an ILS chart (it was the vertex between the constant slope approach and the go-around, directly over the inner NDB). Also, both NDBs where associated with marker beacons (strange for an NDB approach), and the plant view of the chart showed the long arrow along the approach path resembling the LOC symbol (but the GS arrow was missing in the lateral view). So it was a two NDB approach plate that looked similar to an ILS approach plate.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Northwester, this is conjecture on your part, not fact. At least we need to agree on that much.
But, assuming for a moment it is true, then let me throw the question back at you. Why would the Russians go to all this trouble when they knew that the highly trained Polish flight crew would be on a non-precision, visual approach to the runway, closely monitoring instruments and ready to execute a go-around at MDA if the runway was not sighted? Why? To amuse themselves for they had nothing better to do? At least show some integrity and acknowledge that this conjecture lacks motive altogether.
I showed in post 1208 that the plane had to be more than 40m above the middle marker when it received the signal.
We know that the plane clipped the tree at about 11m above ground at that location.
The conclusion? ___________ You can fill in the blanks.
We can argue about semantics, what constitutes strong enough evidence in a case like this, what is the most probable explanation. But you cannot argue that it looks bad. Something is not right here.
Can I explain everything here? No. But I see more and more signs of suspicious actions.
And, your post 1208 proves abolutely NOTHING. It shows there may be a discrepency that needs to be examined, it certainly does not prove there was a fake NDB!
The analisys attached to his post 1208 doesn't even show that there may be a discrepancy. It's flawed. Just that simple.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
And what were the Russians going to do if it was not foggy?
Set the woods ablaze?
They could have easily spread nano-probes as is commonly done in the high-altitdue, so-called con-trails, which are said to be water condensation, but are not.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment