“Unless it’s collective insanity. “Is it perhaps a collective insanity? Catastrophe 154 over the Black Sea last

Photo: Nina Zotina, Sputnik

The crash of the Tu-154 aircraft of the 223rd flight detachment of the Ministry of Defense became one of the biggest tragedies of the past year. There were 92 people on board the liner, all of them died. In each such case, the emergence of different versions of what happened is inevitable. Lenta.ru tried to figure out what was happening.

NB: Everything said below about the causes of the plane crash is a presentation of versions that have not yet been officially confirmed. Until the publication of official conclusions about the results of the investigation into the causes of the disaster, none of these versions can be considered true.

Circumstances

The Tu-154B-2 aircraft, tail number RA-85572, produced in 1983 at the Kuibyshev Aviation Plant (now the Aviakor plant), was in operation almost all the time - first as part of the 8th Special Purpose Air Division of the Air Force, then created in 1993 223 -th flight detachment.

As of the day of the disaster, the aircraft had exhausted about 11 percent of its flight life with an average flight time of just over 200 hours per year, which is relatively little for passenger airliners, which in civil aviation are operated with an intensity of 1000 or more hours per year. The assigned service life of the aircraft was 37,500 hours, or 16 thousand landings, and it could be extended to 60 thousand hours and 22 thousand landings.

Tu-154B-2 has currently been taken out of commercial service due to non-compliance with accepted noise standards and high fuel consumption, but military vehicles still remain in service.

The aircraft operator - the 223rd Flight Detachment of the Ministry of Defense, a Russian state aviation enterprise - provides air transportation in the interests of government agencies and carries out irregular cargo and passenger transportation, as a rule, of military personnel. The enterprise was organized on the basis of the 8th special purpose aviation division (8 adOSNAZ, 8 adon) in Chkalovsky in accordance with the presidential order Russian Federation dated January 15, 1993 No. 37-rp “On ensuring the activities of the 223rd and 224th flight detachments of the Russian Ministry of Defense” for air transportation in the interests of government agencies.

The plane took off from the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow and was supposed to land for refueling in Mozdok, but due to weather conditions the refueling airfield was changed to . The airliner took off from Sochi at 05:25 and fell, according to available data, spending two minutes in the air before the crash.

The flight's destination was the Russian airbase in Khmeimim. The plane was carrying artists of the Alexandrov military ensemble, journalists and military personnel accompanying them. In addition, on board was, known as Doctor Lisa, and the head of the Department of Culture of the Ministry of Defense Anton Gubankov.

Versions

The main publicly discussed versions of what happened come down to three: equipment malfunction, pilot error, terrorist attack. A concomitant factor to the first two could be the weather, but the available data on the actual weather conditions in Sochi at the time of the disaster indicate that they were quite acceptable:

Visibility 10 kilometers or more. Cloudiness in several layers: the lower layer is 5-7 octants (eighths), with a lower edge of 1000 meters, above it there is another layer, continuous with a lower edge of 2800 meters, temperature +5, dew point +1, pressure approximately 763 millimeters of mercury. The runways are dry. East wind 5 meters per second. At sea - wave height is up to 0.1 meters.

All three versions can neither be confirmed nor excluded before the official conclusions of the investigation commission, but you can try to “lay out on the table” the available information, at least in order to organize it.

The last time the RA-85572 aircraft was repaired was in December 2014, and in September 2016 it underwent scheduled maintenance. The aircraft's total flight time over 33 years of operation was 6,689 hours.

This age and service life are completely normal for aircraft in military service. Thus, one of the main cargo-passenger aircraft, the C-135 Stratolifter, built from 1956 to 1965, still remains in service, and the total service life of these aircraft could approach a century - they will remain in the Air Force at least until the 2040s.

The Tu-154 itself is a reliable aircraft, however, no aircraft are insured against technical problems, and, of course, this version will be one of the main ones.

The crew of the crashed airliner is described as experienced. The Tu-154 plane that crashed in Moscow was flown by first class pilot Roman Volkov.

“The Tu-154 military transport aircraft of the Russian Ministry of Defense was flown by an experienced pilot Roman Aleksandrovich Volkov. Roman Volkov is a first class pilot. The total flight time is more than three thousand hours,” the military department told a TASS correspondent.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Petukhov, the navigator of the crashed Tu-154B-2, took part in the rescue of the “dancing airliner” in April 2011. Then a plane of the same model landed at Chkalovsky airport with a faulty control system. The Tu-154B-2 RA-88563 was planned to be transported to Samara for repairs. After the plane took off, problems were discovered in its control system. The plane began to sway in the air and bounce, which was noticeable from the ground. Journalists later called the liner dancing.

Nevertheless, the plane was returned to the runway in Chkalovsky thanks to the skillful actions of the crew. Petukhov was the navigator of the “dancing liner”. He and his colleagues were awarded the Order of Courage.

At the same time, taking off from coastal airfields has always been not the easiest procedure, and the Tu-154, especially in the “B” version, is described by many pilots as a fairly strict aircraft to fly, placing high demands on the pilot, which also does not allow one to dismiss the version out of hand possible tragic mistake. According to civil aviation pilots, a little over three thousand hours of experience for the commander of a machine of this class is insufficient.

Finally, given the political situation, the possibility of a terrorist attack cannot be ruled out, including due to the specific features of the organization of military flights. Unfortunately, the strictness of vetting and security on the military passenger transportation generally much softer than on commercial airlines. As noted by many military personnel and civilians who have experience flying Ministry of Defense aircraft from Chkalovsky and other military airfields, pre-flight inspection on such flights it often comes down to an empty formality in the form of checking passenger lists with documents, especially when “their” team is flying. When flying abroad - to Syria, for example - it is somewhat stricter (border formalities are included), but even in this case it does not compare with traditional measures in the vast majority of civil airports in developed countries.

Under these conditions, it is possible to assume both the possibility of having an explosive device on board, which could have been placed in the luggage of the liner during loading, and the possibility of bringing it on board during an intermediate landing in Sochi. In any case, the possibility of such a development of events is not excluded by the special services, which began checking those who could have access to board the plane at the airport of departure and in Sochi.

A variation of the version of the terrorist attack is the assumption put forward in some media about a possible attack on the plane using a man-portable anti-aircraft missile system, which could have been carried out by terrorists either from a boat or from a residential area on the coast, but this option is unlikely to correspond to reality, given that the crashed airliner originally was supposed to land in Mozdok, and if they intended to attack him while landing/takeoff from the refueling airfield, they would have been waiting for him there.

Ministry of Emergency Situations and - deep-sea divers from all four fleets, with special equipment and underwater vehicles.

Photos of fragments crashed plane President of the Russian Union of Experts “AS” Yuri Antipov commented for KP

"THE PLANE COULD START TO DESTROY WHILE IN THE AIR"

There are known cases of successful emergency landings on water (see Help below). But nowhere was there such damage - skin torn to shreds, parts of the wings torn off with meat. And this is all - after falling into the water from a height of 250 meters? Maybe because those landings took place during the day, but here it was at night?

Night or day - it doesn't matter. The main thing is that at the time of the disaster the sea was calm. And its surface could be clearly seen using the liner’s spotlights.

General view of a fragment of the fuselage with a characteristic outward bend of its cylindrical generatrix

- If we assume that the plane's flaps jammed on takeoff, was there a chance to escape?

Flaps are needed to increase lift at low speed - during takeoff and landing. If after takeoff the flaps remain extended and are not retracted, then it is quite possible to continue the flight, but at a lower speed (up to 400 kilometers per hour without problems). By the way, the flaps are extended at approximately this speed when the plane descends to land. But it’s easier and more reliable to go back to fix the problem.

- So the plane could have just landed in an emergency?

Yes, I would turn around and sit down again. In general, during landing, the speed can be reduced to almost 200 kilometers per hour by releasing the flaps. And if they are not released, then the landing speed will be about 300 km/h, which is also acceptable.

Condition of the fuselage skin above the wing

SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE CARGO COMPARTMENT

According to the Ministry of Defense, the plane was flying over the sea at a speed of about 360 km/h at an altitude of about 250 meters. So why, despite the low altitude gained by the plane, the wreckage was scattered over a large area, and the bodies of the dead were significantly damaged?

Let's look at one characteristic piece of debris - this is part of the fuselage on the right side in the door area.

The upper part of the doorway is intact

1. The upper part of the doorway is intact. This means that the door could only fly out of it downwards - for example, when an uninverted whole plane hit the surface of the water.

Lower left corner of doorway

2. The lower part of the doorway is also relatively intact. Although, if the door had fallen down with the fuselage intact, this part should have suffered more.

The fold of the skin is indicated by a black line

3. The same fragment from a different angle: here you can clearly see how it is bent in half (the fold of the skin is indicated by a black line).

It seems that the bending of the fragment occurred under the influence of some force directed from inside the aircraft

It seems that the bending of the fragment occurred under the influence of some force directed from inside the aircraft. Great pressure, so bending the structural elements, tearing off the skin and folding it in half with a bang, was down in the cargo compartment of the Tu-154. If the fragment had been torn off and folded in half when the plane hit the water, then the edges of the fragment would have simply been flattened.

- What could have happened in the cargo compartment?

My version is this: for some reason the plane ended up with the fuselage torn open at the bottom. This could be destruction in the cargo compartment (from an explosive device or transported cargo). Analysis of photos of other debris also suggests that the plane began to disintegrate in the air, before hitting the surface.

The fragment corresponds to the part of the fuselage highlighted in the photo

It is possible that the engines, which were hit by detached debris, began to fail. But the plane still remained survivable. The pilots, not seeing the damage, I think, did not understand what had happened, and began to turn the plane on the opposite course. And since the source of damage was in the central part of the plane near the wings, the plane began to lose fuel at the first moment of the turn.

Location on the wreck of a technological niche

The floor of the cabin collapsed. Passengers, cargo, and things began to fall out of the belly of the flying plane. At speeds of at least 350 km/h, the passengers' bodies hit the water. Hence large number body fragments The dilapidated fuselage of the aircraft returning to the ground continued to collapse under the influence of aerodynamic forces. And when it hit the surface of the water 1.7 km from the shore, the destroyed fuselage structure could no longer reliably protect and save the lives of the passengers still on board. The loss of passengers and cargo in the forward area through an opening in the belly of the aircraft (the second door is located in front of the wings) disrupted the alignment of the aircraft. That’s why an eyewitness saw the plane crash before hitting the water with its nose unnaturally raised up.

There was also a theory that the pilot mixed up the switches and instead of retracting the landing gear, retracted the flaps? Could a plane burst in mid-air due to overload?

All these assumptions are based on the premise that pilots are idiots. But they are not idiots. The landing gear is retracted within a maximum of a minute after lifting off the ground. If the flaps are retracted instead, the wing will begin to lose lift and the airplane will end up in a nose-down attitude instead of up.

By the way, today in “KP” I read a note that the wreckage of a Tu-154 was washed up on the beach in Sochi by the sea. It says that among those found was a heavily melted fan. So draw your own conclusions - how could the fan melt if there was no explosion on board, the plane just fell into the sea?

How does the death of a Tu-154 in Sochi differ from similar cases?

1. A320 emergency landing on the Hudson. January 2009. Airbus A320 was flying from New York to Seattle. 1.5 minutes after takeoff, the plane collided with a flock of birds, causing both engines to fail. The crew landed the plane safely on the water of the Hudson River (the incident went down in history as the “Miracle on the Hudson”).

People: All 155 passengers and 5 crew members were saved.

Damage to the plane: did not collapse, remained on the surface of the water, passengers waited for rescuers, standing on the wings.

2. Boeing 767 crash Indian Ocean. November 1996. The airliner took off from Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) to Nigeria, 20 minutes later it was hijacked by three terrorists who demanded to fly to Australia and, without listening to the pilots, that there was not enough fuel for such a long flight from Africa. After 3 thousand km, the fuel ran out, and the crew commander made an emergency landing half a kilometer from the Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean.

People: Of the 163 passengers and 12 crew members, 125 people died (including the hijackers), 46 survived (managed to put on life jackets).

Damage to the aircraft: broke into four parts upon impact with the water and sank.

3. Tu-124 landing on the Neva. August 1963. The passenger Tu-124 was flying from Tallinn to Moscow. During takeoff, the front landing gear jammed. It was impossible to return because of the fog in Tallinn. We decided to land at the nearest airport - in Leningrad. As the plane flew around the city, running out of fuel, one of the engines stopped, then the second. "Tu" flew just above the construction bridge and splashed down on the Neva opposite the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

People: All 45 passengers and 7 crew survived.

Damage to the aircraft: received holes and sank. Then they pulled it out and used it as a training device.

4. Landing of IL-12 on the Volga. April 1953. Il-12 operated a flight from Moscow to Novosibirsk with an intermediate landing in Kazan. When approaching Kazan over the Volga near the River Port, the plane flew into a flock of ducks. One hit the engine, the other crashed into the cockpit. The crew completed emergency landing to the river.

People: All 18 passengers and 5 crew members were alive after landing, but one person drowned during evacuation.

Damage to the aircraft: did not collapse, began to sink slowly. Later they took him out, but wrote him off a month later.

5. Tu-154 disaster in the Black Sea. December 2016. A Russian Air Force Tu-154 aircraft was flying from Moscow to Syria. Landed in Sochi to refuel. After taking off, it fell into the sea 70 seconds later, having managed to fly 1,700 meters and gain a height of 250 meters.

Tu-154 crash over the Black Sea. Infographics.

People: All 92 people on board died - 84 passengers and 8 crew members. According to the testimony of the divers who participated in the search operation, there were few intact bodies.

Damage to the aircraft: “The aircraft was almost completely destroyed upon impact with the water surface and the subsequent bottom of the Black Sea,” Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov said at a joint press conference between the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Transport on December 29, 2016. The debris was found at the bottom of the Black Sea at a depth of 25 meters, the scatter radius was 500 meters. Also at the press conference, a version was voiced that there was no explosion on board, but “there could have been a mechanical impact.” The investigation is ongoing.

photo: Vladimir Velengurin, Alexey Bulatov

MOSCOW, December 25 – RIA Novosti, Andrey Kots. December 2016 left another terrible date in the historical calendar of Russia. Exactly a year ago, the disaster over the Black Sea claimed the lives of 92 people. Pilots, our fellow journalists, the famous volunteer doctor Elizaveta Glinka. And 64 military musicians of the Academic Twice Red Banner Song and Dance Ensemble of the Russian Army named after Alexander Alexandrov. On December 25, 2016, the legendary band lost its best soloists, the first lineup. Passengers of the military flight flew to the Khmeimim air base to wish them a Happy New Year. Russian soldiers and officers who liberated Syria from terrorists for the second year. The causes of the disaster are not fully understood to this day. About the current versions - in the RIA Novosti material.

Old but reliable

The RA-85572 aircraft could hardly be called new. It was built at the Kuibyshev Aviation Plant in 1983. By December 2016, the 33-year-old Tu-154 had flown 6,689 hours. However, for aircraft of this type the age limit is 40 years, and the service life is 60 thousand flight hours. During its entire operation, it never seriously broke down, and the last scheduled repair took place in 2014. A few days before the disaster, some difficulties arose with the aircraft - airfield services discovered a fuel leak from the wing tank. But the problems were promptly corrected, and the work was accepted by military authorities. Before departure on December 25, 2016, the plane passed all the necessary checks, it was found to be fully operational and ready for a long flight.

The plane took off after refueling at Sochi airport at 05:25 Moscow time. The airliner was piloted by 35-year-old Major Roman Volkov, who had flown more than three thousand hours during his practice. Weather conditions that morning were favorable: visibility was about 10 kilometers, the air temperature was minus five degrees, the height of the lower boundary of the clouds was 1000 meters, the wind speed did not exceed four meters per second. The plane lifted off the runway at 37 seconds after the start of the takeoff run, at a speed of 320 kilometers per hour. The crew made two 90-degree turns to starboard and headed east. At 05:27, the Tu-154 disappeared from the radar screens and fell into the sea 1.6 kilometers from the coast and six kilometers from the edge of the runway. The flight lasted only 70 seconds.

Soon after the tragedy, the military investigative department of the Investigative Committee (IC) for the Sochi garrison opened a criminal case under Article 351 of the Criminal Code of Russia - “Violation of flight rules that resulted in grave consequences.” Later the case was transferred to the central office of the Investigative Committee. The Russian FSB took over operational support of the investigation. In addition, a commission of the Ministry of Defense was created, headed by Deputy Minister, Army General Pavel Popov. As the head of the aviation safety service of the Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Sergei Baynetov, said at the end of December, initially more than 15 versions of the plane crash were worked out. Later their number decreased.

Human factor

The first versions of the causes of the crash were announced the day after the plane crash by the Russian FSB: foreign objects entering the engine, low-quality fuel, piloting error or technical malfunction of the aircraft. Representatives of the investigation emphasized that the plane did not transport military or dual-use cargo. There were also no signs of sabotage or terrorist attack. In Sochi, only two border guards and a customs officer boarded the plane.

The expert community also voiced several versions, including quite exotic ones. In particular, it was assumed that the Tu-154 could have been opened fire from a man-portable anti-aircraft missile system, which resulted in the destruction of the airframe in the air. In addition, experts did not rule out that the co-pilot Alexander Rovensky could have made a fatal mistake when he mixed up the landing gear and flap control levers. For this reason, the plane was unable to gain altitude, began to fall and hit the water with its tail.

Later, experts studied the issue of the ship's workload. In April, information appeared in the media that the crash could have occurred due to the airliner being overloaded. Then journalists claimed that instead of the standard 98 tons, the weight of the aircraft at takeoff was allegedly more than 110 tons. As a result, the Ministry of Defense found no “violations of the current requirements regarding the seating of passengers in the Tu-154 cabin, as well as the loading and alignment of the transported cargo.”

“Based on the results of the investigation, it was established that the cause of the incident could have been a violation of spatial orientation - the situational awareness of the aircraft commander, which led to his erroneous actions,” representatives of the military department announced their version at the end of May.

It’s too early to draw a line

Earlier, journalists from the Kommersant newspaper came to similar conclusions, publishing their own investigation, supported by comments from informed sources. It was alleged, in particular, that the pilot Roman Volkov began to have difficulty determining his location while still on the ground - he could not understand in any way which of the two runways he would take off from. According to the publication, the commander of the aircraft lost his orientation in space immediately after takeoff. Instead of trusting the instrument readings, as required by all flight instructions, the pilot Volkov began to rely on his own physiological sensations. The vestibular apparatus “informed” him that the car was gaining altitude too quickly, so the major began to lower the nose of the plane. This, as Kommersant writes, led to the crash.

However, the Investigative Committee, which has already extended the investigation period several times, must put an end to finding out the causes of the disaster. Last Wednesday, a source familiar with the situation told RIA Novosti that specialists would need several more months. According to him, repeated suspensions are due to the need to conduct additional investigative actions and collect comprehensive evidence in a criminal case.

“It is quite possible that this is not the last extension of the investigation period due to the fact that a complex examination is currently being carried out, which will be completed in short terms“It’s not possible,” the source emphasized.

Illustration copyright AFP Image caption Experts indicate that the plane was flown by a very experienced crew

A Tu-154 plane of the Russian Ministry of Defense crashed on Sunday morning over the Black Sea. The crash occurred a few minutes after takeoff from Sochi airport, where the plane stopped to refuel before continuing on to the Russian Khmeimim airbase in Syria.

Russian authorities say they are studying all possible versions of what happened, but the FSB insists that no signs have yet been found that it was a terrorist attack.

There were 92 people on board, including choir artists from the Alexandrov Ensemble, the head of the Fair Aid Foundation Elizaveta Glinka and nine employees of federal television channels.

Valery Shelkovnikov, board member of the World Flight Safety Foundation:

“On the one hand, everything is simple. Aircraft accident investigators around the world base their work on three main things: man, machine and the environment.

As for the person: yesterday, the deputy head of the aviation safety service of the armed forces, Sergei Dmitreevich Bainetov, said that the crew commander was a very experienced person. By military standards, three thousand hours of flight time is a trained pilot.

Car. 1983 Old car or aging? But the American B-52 has been flying for about 50 years. I know American cargo companies that use 45-year-old Boeing 747s. And there is a lot of that. There is a special concept for the use of old and aging aircraft. If you keep an eye on them, they continue to fly successfully. The only obstacle is expensive maintenance.

I was in Alaska, there is a company called “Aleutian Rivers”, maybe I’m wrong in the name - I myself flew on a DC-3, it transports fishermen and the local population there. But this is a World War II plane!

Yesterday my friend, former FinnAir chief pilot Urpo Koskela, sent me his version - icing. He says the wing is frozen. Although it was warm in Sochi, +3 or +4, the fuel was cold. This is the version he is considering.

Icing is a very dangerous thing. They might not have detected it, and ice might have formed on the wing or tail, and ice immediately disrupts aerodynamics. Loses control instantly.

If you heard radio traffic, the launch controller asks: “Where are you planning to take off from?”

The crew replies: “From the beginning (of the strip), it’s heavy.” That is, it only has half a passenger compartment; Only he knows what he has in his luggage compartments. They were probably full of fuel, and in such situations, as you know, even a little ice on the wing is the end.

The pilot, however, did not say anything on air. They will find the boxes, then we will be able to determine something from the conversations inside the cabin.

Terrorist attack - this option is also being considered there. But in Sochi there is an airport that was being prepared for the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games were held without a hitch, from the point of view of aviation safety. I was there just recently - passengers are carefully checked there. Maybe less carefully than at the Israeli airport, but...

One can consider the version that someone shot down the plane with a MANPADS. This may be the case. When we flew to Afghanistan on Tu-154 and Il-76 planes, so-called “heat traps” were installed on the planes to avoid the effects of Dushman’s MANPADS.

A rocket was fired from the wing consoles every five seconds, and the temperature of this rocket was greater than the temperature of the exhaust gases of the aircraft engines. And MANPADS became ineffective.

And now the situation is very serious, we need to protect the planes from this matter. Israeli colleagues sent information about their government’s decision to equip its fleet of civil aircraft with systems to protect against potential threats from man-portable air defense systems.

But these are all versions. There are many versions."

Urpo Koskela, former chief pilot of FinnAir:

"I looked at climatic conditions in Sochi at the time of the accident. If the plane arrived in Sochi after a long flight (from Moscow and so on), then the fuel in the wing became cold (the so-called “supercooled wing effect”).

While the plane was standing on the apron, a microclimate formed over the cold upper surface of the wing. The moisture above the cold upper surface of the wing settled on it, creating a layer of transparent ice that is very difficult to notice unless you know about it in advance (you can only detect such ice by touch). This layer of transparent ice significantly worsens the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing during takeoff. The plane can suddenly lose speed and roll over, especially when turning.

This happened to me once during testing. Douglas Aircraft initially rejected the possibility of ice on the wings, but they believed it when I showed them photographs.

I spoke about this incident at my lecture in Los Angeles. But out of the six hundred people present at it, literally only a few believed me.

My words were confirmed after the SAS DC-9 plane made an emergency landing in runway airfield due to the failure of both engines. It turned out that when the angle of attack was increased to create lift, when the wing bent, this ice got into the engines, which immediately stalled.

If this happened in Sochi, it will be impossible to detect it - the ice has already melted. But I think this version is worth seriously thinking about, don’t you?”

Viktor Sazhenin, Honored Pilot of Russia:

“Theoretically [Urpo Koskela] stated everything correctly, but it is impossible to apply it to this specific case.

If the plane had picked up ice while landing in Sochi, the crew would have already felt a deterioration in the aerodynamic characteristics of the plane and would have required treating the plane on the ground with anti-icing fluid.

The temperature of the fuel being refueled was probably positive, and not negative, as the author writes. You and I know the climatic conditions in Sochi, and the outside air temperature there was +5 degrees. The ice on the wing (if it was there) would definitely have already melted while the plane was refueling and parked on the apron.

A drop in fuel temperature of five degrees per hour is not correct; it depends more on the outside air temperature and the presence or absence of an inversion layer. And the plane spent only two minutes in the air."

Vadim Lukashevich, independent aviation expert:

“There remain the versions that were named yesterday - a technical malfunction and a terrorist attack. Perhaps a collision with birds, some kind of external influence, but not hostile, natural.

I am least inclined to believe the version of piloting error. Because, as it turned out, the crew commander, the pilot, had about three thousand flight hours and performed a number of functions. In particular, according to the testimony of cosmonaut Pavel Vinogradov on Facebook, I read that they knew each other because this pilot repeatedly took cosmonauts and space specialists to Baikonur and back.

And these tasks are entrusted only to very high-quality pilots. There, when they fly to Baikonur, in case of any unforeseen situations, the main crew flies on one plane, and the backup crew flies on another. Especially so that if the main crew, God forbid, dies in a plane crash, then the backup crew will fly.

I’m talking about how high the safety requirements are for transporting crews from the Cosmonaut Training Center in Shchelkovo near Moscow to Baikonur. And if such a person carried these people, then you understand that this is a pilot of the highest class. I don't think there's any pilot error here.

(About icing version)

Why not? After all, the plane does not become icy in Sochi itself, but immediately after takeoff. One can recall the death of Borovik, a journalist who crashed a Yak-40 in Moscow.

But I think that this is probably unlikely, because, firstly, this is Sochi and the temperature there was significantly above zero. And he didn't have time to dial greater height- where intense icing began.

Although the devil knows... But this version does not seem so likely to me. Theoretically this is possible. But theoretically, it could also be like this: he was making a U-turn, the cargo in the luggage compartment for some reason fell off, lay on one side, and a list occurred. But these, you know, are very far-fetched versions.

(About the silence of the pilots before the crash)

In extreme situations, pilots usually need some kind of assistance from the ground. A striking example is the “Miracle on the Hudson,” when the pilots immediately requested landing and so on. Of course, when some very fast-moving situation arises that develops in five, ten, twenty seconds, the pilot still has the opportunity to press the emergency button.

I would not say that the version of the terrorist attack is the main one. There is indirect evidence, but it is difficult to rely on it. For example, it is called a large spread of debris, one and a half kilometers. But as I understand it, if it were on the surface of the earth - yes. And it’s unclear where. If it's on the seabed, yes too. But if we mean debris that simply floats under the influence of wind and currents, then this is absolutely not the case.

Naturally, the pilots didn’t say anything - it’s incomprehensible. That is, there are factors that speak in favor of the version of the terrorist attack, but now it is premature to say that this is the main version."

“Erroneous actions of the crew” are named as the cause of the Tu-154 crash over the Black Sea, which occurred on December 25, 2016. RIA Novosti, citing the Ministry of Defense, reported: “Based on the results of the investigation, it was established that the cause of the incident could have been a violation of the spatial orientation (situational awareness) of the aircraft commander, which led to his erroneous actions with the aircraft controls.”

Almost simultaneously with the RIA Novosti report, four pages of the report of the head of the Aviation Flight Safety Service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant General Sergei Baynetov, on the results of the work of the “inquiry commission” were leaked onto the Internet aviation accident" The document is very similar to the real one. It is dated May 4, 2017 and has the reference number 137/2/883 DSP (the abbreviation DSP means for official use).

The report of Lieutenant General Baynetov describes in great detail the last flight of the crashed Tu-154, which was part of the 800th special purpose airbase of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS). At the same time, the last minutes are second by second. Key takeaways from the document: “The cause of the crash of the Tu-154 B-2 aircraft was a violation of spatial orientation (situational awareness) of the aircraft commander, which led to his erroneous actions with the aircraft controls, as a result of which the aircraft, during the climb, went into descent and collided with the water surface.” .

The document emphasizes that the aircraft commander, Major Roman Volkov “began to experience difficulties in determining his location on the airfield, associated with his idea of ​​​​the upcoming take-off course”, not understanding which of the two runways of the Sochi airport would take off from.

At 5 hours 24 minutes 36 seconds the crew began takeoff with a heading of 238°. But already in the seventh second of takeoff, the aircraft commander (PIC) “emotionally began to ask the crew about the takeoff course.” Moreover, with the use of “obscene language,” which led to “to the PIC’s failure to control take-off ground parameters, to the distraction of crew members from performing their functional duties”.

As soon as he took off from the ground, setting the plane to a pitch of 15°, Major Volkov turned the steering wheel away from himself, slowing down the climb. And already at the 53rd second of the flight, when the plane had gained only 157 meters of altitude, the PIC ordered the flaps to be removed, although according to all regulations this operation is carried out at an altitude of at least 500 meters. At the same time, Volkov continued to tilt the steering wheel away from himself. Which led to the fact that at an altitude of 231 meters the plane switched to descent mode, losing altitude at a speed of 6-8 m/s. The siren sounded and the red display flashed in the cockpit. But none of the crew paid attention to this.

At the 70th second of the flight, when the Tu-154 was only 90 meters from the surface of the water, the PIC abruptly turned the aircraft, which was turning with a slight right bank of about 10°, into a steep left bank of 53°. The plane rushed to the surface of the water three times faster, at a speed of 20 m/s, and was already doomed.

At the 73rd second of flight, the Tu-154, at a speed of 540 km/h and a left roll of about 50, touched the surface of the sea with its left wing, fell apart and sank.

The report of Lieutenant General Baynetov indicated that the emergence of a critical situation on board the Tu-154 was facilitated by the “emotional and physiological fatigue” of commander Volkov, as well as his lack of “sustainable skills” in piloting in difficult situations.

Experienced military pilots, whom we asked to comment on the commission’s conclusions about the causes of the Sochi disaster and the document distributed on the Internet, similar to the report of the head of the Aviation Safety Service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, agreed that there were many inconsistencies in both the official report and the “document.”

Our experts noticed that at the Sochi airport, planes taxi to the start behind an escort vehicle. In addition, the airport is equipped with illuminated taxiway and runway number signs. It is almost impossible to get lost at Sochi airport. If Major Volkov is “lost” already on the ground, a take-off ban should immediately follow.

It is impossible to explain what happened after takeoff:

“Unless there has been collective insanity,” said one of our experts. “The actions of both the captain and crew are absolutely inadequate. The actions of the rudders (especially the rudder - from the pedals) after takeoff cannot be explained normally. The flight speed indicated in the document allows the plane to stay in the air, but a normal, trained, tested and approved pilot for this type of flight could not allow such actions with the rudders.

The actual withdrawal of the co-pilot and navigator also cannot be explained:

— The crew sees that the PIC is making one fatal mistake after another, and does nothing. This is impossible in military transport aviation.

“We can assume that KPP-1 (the flight control instrument is the main instrument of any aircraft) failed,” another of our interlocutors suggested. — The “document” says about its direct indication, they say, it’s difficult. Yes, it's difficult. During retraining, on the simulator. And Volkov was an experienced pilot. In addition, KPP-1 has a backup attitude indicator AGR-72.

Our experts noticed that the “document” says that the landing gear was removed, but in all the photographs of the collected debris of the crashed Tu-154, the landing gear is in the extended position.

One of our experts, a military transport aviation veteran with more than 10 thousand flight hours, of which about 4 thousand as a Tu-154 crew commander, continues to adhere to the version that Novaya published back in March. Our interlocutor suggests that the full-time commander of the Tu-154 crew, Major Roman Volkov, acted as a co-pilot during takeoff, although he was in his seat, and the pilot who took off was not only not trained and not authorized to fly this type of aircraft, but also not included in the flight mission, senior in rank and position. Yes, he had extensive flying experience, but on other types of aircraft, for example on the An-72. On board the crashed plane there was indeed a senior instructor-pilot of military unit 42829, a lieutenant colonel. And he flew precisely on the An-72.

The “document”, positioned as the report of Lieutenant General Sergei Baynetov, is very similar to the real one, but our experts do not rule out that it is a fake, made “on the basis” of the real document.