The details of the Polish plane crash…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7094338.ece
The air traffic controllers had told the pilot to divert to another airport. Prior to the 1st attempt to land, the pilot had dumped fuel. That sealed the fate of the plane that it had to land at that airport – it didn’t have the fuel to get anywhere else. On the 4th attempt to land, the plane lost altitude – which may be an indication it ran out of fuel (the story doesn’t say that)…
President Kaczynski apparently had a documented history of demanding pilots land in bad weather The airport in Smolensk is a military airport with a 8200 foot runway. Since late 2009, there have been no military planes at the airport – the only people stationed there are the people at the control tower.
The plane was a Russian built Tu-154 – Aeroflot ended using them in commercial service at the end of 2009. 66 of them have been involved in accidents – they were designed to be able to land on remote gravel runways. The plane does have automated ILS landing capability – but the airport in Smolensk had no working ILS (apparently)
Smolensk is only a few miles inside of Russia – to get there from Poland, you cross BelaRus – the distance of the flight is around 500 miles – the Tu154 has a range of about 1,600 miles if it took off with a full fuel load. The tower suggested they divert to Minsk (in Belarus) or Moscow – both of which were in range to land, but would have delayed the arrival for the ceremony
If the above is correct, near zero-zero visibility and no working ILS (instrument landing system) is a combination that virually guarantees a crash. The ILS system was preceded by GCA (ground controlled approach), but none of the reports indicate the pilot was being guided in under ground control. The third choice is to arrive at the outer marker (a vertically projected radio signal that tells the pilot when he is over it), followed by a specified descent rate, airspeed, and compass heading until (hopefully) arriving at the end of the runway. The descent is stopped if the runway isn’t seen after reaching a specified altitude, and a go-around for another approach is initiated. This third choice is dicey, especially with a high performance jet.
Since it’s basically an empty airport, the air controller was watching the plane on radar and had no distractions. It would not surprise me if langauge issues also complicated the situation. The Russians say they have recovered both black boxes.
One detail I haven’t tracked down is the runway requirements for the Tu154. The plane is similar to the Boeing 727. One reason to dump fuel is to decrease stopping distance when you have a short runway.
The city also has a civilian airport, but that runway is only 5200′ long
Russian TV (for what it’s worth) talked to a local who was out walking his dog when the crash happened. Apparently fog is a frequent problem, and the sound of missed landings and planes going around again is not uncommon.
He mentions hearing the crash, but didn’t mention an explosion…. the wings on the Tu254 are swept back and behind most of the fuselage. The crash site shows a lot of debris, but little signs of fire….