Do you know that anything is visible from the pilot`s cockpit during the flight ?
Good question. Perhaps in your attempt to blame the Russians, you can explain to us why the pilot didn't react as soon as he reached the minimum altitude allowed for visually spotting the runway. That's 130m, barometric, by the way. He was in full possession of the barometric data - Blasik's readouts have confirmed this.
So do you think that cpt. Protasiuk could fly safely only because he managed to land his plane safely 3 days before that crash . Don`t you think that all the conditions were different .
What was different? Trees don't grow several metres in three days.
Actually, what was different was that he wasn't flying the plane then.
The plane during the flight was just above the clouds and when it descended it was a fog that obscured the vision totally for the pilot . So it was up to the controllers to give proper information for the pilot to land a plane safely . They missed such obligations . LZC and ATC crews are fully responsible for that crash .
Listen to what convex is telling you - ATC is advisory. The pilot has the responsibility to maintain the correct altitude - he got to 130m and continued to descend rather than 'go around'. When he reached 130m, in terms of aviation, he was required to either spot the runway or 'go around'. He didn't see the runway and instead chose to keep descending - which led to the crash.
He couldn't see anything, yes? So - according to his licence, he shouldn't even have attempted the landing. Perhaps you might want to explain why he did?
The controlling tower first and main purpose is to make the landing safe .
Common myth. In fact, they're there to provide information to help the pilots make the correct decisions.
Why bother , everything is up to the pilot , according to some critics.
Not "according to some critics", but rather "according to aviation law".
The commander has supreme responsibility, unless he explicitly delegates this to ATC. There is such a thing where the controller takes responsibility, but they certainly weren't flying such an approach on that day into Smolensk-North.
Incidentally, Monia - again - you paste things with little to no knowledge of what they contain. Perhaps you might want to tell us just what the Chicago Convention has to do with a military flight? Perhaps the correct name of the convention might help you -
Convention on International Civil Aviation