The best planes in the world cannot overcome a combination of fog and trees and somebody on board who absolutely insists on landing in that spot. It crashed on the 4th approach, not the first. Also, twenty years is not that old if the planes are well maintained. I've flown on commercial flights on planes that were older. Did the airport have sufficient instruments and cleared approaches for fog landings? Maybe not, if the pilot was warned not to land. Fog closes the airport here almost every winter, and you just don't mess with it. It is like gambling with God.

1. I agree with the other blogger, that 20 years old is not too old. 2. I also agree that the airport should have ILS and other navigational radio systems, or should be closed during poor visability and weather. That's what most pilots call INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR). Any properly trained pilots have IFR certification, certainly a Presidential pilot. 3. Last, any experienced pilot would heed the advice of Air Traffic Control! I learned that 36 years ago!!

That's the most common phrase repeated in last few days, obviously by people who take words 'russian' and 'shabby' as synonymous. The plane has been completely refurbished in four months ago, that included avionics and all three engines. It flown just 5000 hours before that overhaul. Moreover it should be noted, that the feral plane was exactly the same age as american Boeing VC-25 (747) which acts as Air Force One since 1990, and that Boeing 747 was first flown on 1969, one year after Tu-154. So it was neither shabby nor old. Apart from all that it's obvious that there is no plane that could land safely in such weather conditions without ILS guidance, which wasn't availabla on crude military-derived Smolensk airfield.

This Mr Tusk seems to be deadly parsimonious. Or quite a hater of Mr. Kazinski.

$60,000's for a Non-English speaking President to 'attend' something in Brussels would seem overly insensitive given his most ardent fans + supporters could best be described as, not terribly well off. . . Which calls into question the 'need' to be 'jetting about', when teleconferencing might achieve and save a great deal more, both financially and environmentally? . . . without mentioning, the 'Bullet Proof' convoy needed to get to and from the airport? Other countries have 'Royals' on bicycles and Mr Putin,himself, is barely off a Chopper.

Plane after major overhoul in Samara was NOT perfect. It broke on Haiti hepl back journey to Azore and Warsow.

Exacly the same crew was taking back fligt when at night over Atlantic Navigation comuter broke down. The crew navigating thrugh stars was able to land safetly on Azores. Without thair professional comitment and team work thay would wet their asses in Atlantic, but they did their job moreover than perfect...

MEJanssen wrote in #1

The best planes in the world cannot overcome a combination of fog and trees and somebody on board who absolutely insists on landing in that spot. It crashed on the 4th approach, not the first. Also, twenty years is not that old if the planes are well maintained. I've flown on commercial flights on planes that were older. Did the airport have sufficient instruments and cleared approaches for fog landings? Maybe not, if the pilot was warned not to land. Fog closes the airport here almost every winter, and you just don't mess with it. It is like gambling with God.

 

 

That is true with normal planes and such a weather. This plane was equiped with IR/UV cammera, so it could be anything and still pilot saw most of it. It is very difficult for Russian MAK when was asked about this cocpit camera....

 

They did not provide any answer...

It is so obvious the Russians brought down the plane. And since when does RT support mass media? They always try to go against the mainstream media, but here they are promoting them. Biggest hypocrites ever!!!