The FSB voiced four main versions of the Tu-154 crash of the Ministry of Defense over the Black Sea: foreign objects entering the engine, low-quality fuel, piloting error or a technical malfunction of the aircraft. Pilots and aviation safety experts have speculated about the most likely cause of the crash.
Forensic experts from the Investigative Committee arrived at the site where the wreckage of RA-85572 was discovered - in the Black Sea near Sochi. This was reported by sources in law enforcement agencies.
“Tu-154 is one of the most reliable aircraft in the world. But this is a very strict aircraft to fly."
A group of divers from the Ministry of Emergency Situations found the fuselage of the plane at the bottom a mile from the coast - this was reported by the Southern Regional Search and Rescue Team (SRPSO) of the Ministry of Emergency Situations. Earlier it was reported that debris was found in a strip of 400 meters at a depth of 25 meters, 1.5 km from the coast abeam Khosta. Some fragments have already been brought to the surface.
Currently, search teams, including divers, are being assembled at the site where the wreckage was discovered. Now divers from the Ministry of Emergency Situations are carrying out a repeated descent. “There are a lot of small parts at the bottom and practically no large ones,” said the agency’s interlocutor.
Let us remind you that in the crash of the Tu-154 plane of the Russian Ministry of Defense that occurred the previous morning, 92 people were killed, including nine media representatives (journalists from Channel One, NTV and the Zvezda TV channel) and 64 artists from the Alexandrov Song and Dance Ensemble. Also on the passenger list is the famous doctor Elizaveta Glinka (Doctor Lisa), who works for the university hospital in Latakia.
Four versions of the FSB
On Monday, the Federal Security Service announced... This is the entry of foreign objects into the engine, low-quality fuel (resulting in loss of power and engine failure), piloting error or technical malfunction of the aircraft.
The RA-85572 board took off at a standard speed of 345 kilometers per hour. No signs of a terrorist attack or sabotage have been detected on board the Tu-154 at this time, the FSB emphasized.
As a source in the special services explained to TASS, after arriving in Adler the plane was taken under guard. Only two border guards and one customs officer climbed on board, so the version of a bomb being brought in can be ruled out. In addition, the landing in Adler was unplanned, since refueling was initially planned in Mozdok, but the route was postponed due to weather conditions.
Representatives of the FSB also reported: the crashed Tu-154 did not transport any military or dual-use cargo, or pyrotechnics.
Earlier, the head of the government commission to investigate the disaster, Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov, also said that the terrorist attack was not the main version of what happened. The technical condition of the aircraft, as well as piloting errors, are considered as the reasons, the head of the Ministry of Transport said. Sokolov clarified that his department does not see the need to introduce additional security measures at the country’s airports.
Non-synchronous cleaning of wing mechanization
Test pilot, Hero of Russia Magomed Tolboev noted that when determining the causes of the Tu-154 crash, it is worth considering technical problems. The expert said that he discussed the disaster with colleagues.
All of them, as a priority version, note that “non-synchronized retraction of the flaps” could have led to the death of the aircraft. “In general, this is called “non-synchronous retraction of the wing mechanization,” Tolboev noted.
The interlocutor explained that in this case, the flaps and slats are retracted on one side of the wing, but not retracted on the other side. “It turns out that the plane instantly turns around its axis. Neither the commander nor anyone has time to say a word, they are thrown there like herring in a barrel,” summed up Magomed Tolboev.
There are no parallels with the Tu-104 disaster of 1981
Let us note that earlier there were suggestions in the media that the cause of the death of the Tu-154 was the same as the Tu-104 crash that took place in 1981 in the Leningrad region. Then the plane crashed due to overload in the tail section: the command of the Pacific Fleet, flying on this side, stored heavy suitcases and other cargo in the tail of the liner. During takeoff, the “gifts” moved backwards, causing the plane to crash.However, as Magomed Tolboev explains, parallels cannot be drawn between the Tu-104 crash in 1981 and the current Tu-154 crash. Such a situation, in which the cargo suddenly shifted to the tail, cannot happen on the Tu-154, Tolboev noted. “The Tu-154 has a central compartment under the wing near the center section and tail section; in addition, there is an automatic alignment device, which itself determines the transfer of fuel and the presence of a threat on board,” the interlocutor explained.
“The plane sets its controls so that the alignment is in one position,” the expert noted. “The Tu-104 did not have an automatic tracking system, and generals and admirals could load whatever they wanted into the tail.”
Small raid
Civil aviation expert, director of the ICAA Flight Safety programs Viktor Galenko believes that the most plausible version of what happened is a human factor, and not a technical malfunction. Galenko noted that “air crash statistics indicate a ratio of 8 to 2: out of ten such incidents, in eight cases the cause is the human factor, in two – everything else.”
After repairs, the Tu-154 aircraft was practically like new - the service life of this aircraft was 11%, the expert emphasized. “Tu-154 is one of the most reliable aircraft in the world. It has a huge power supply and a very high degree of wing mechanization,” the interlocutor noted. “This allows the aircraft to take off and land in any conditions – in particular, in high altitude conditions, thin air and heat, which are much more difficult for pilots than the weather conditions that were in Adler.”
“But there is one detail: this is a very strict aircraft to fly,” the expert emphasizes. – The aircraft requires full pilot training at a flight school course. In the USSR, for the "carcass" they first took the test for the An-24 or Yak-40 from the pilot as a second pilot, then they made him the crew commander of the An-24 or Yak-40, then again after a short retraining they "put him in the right seat" (second pilot - approx. VIEW) Tu-154, and only then, at the age of 40, the pilot could lead the crew of the Tu-154.”
The commander of the crew of the crashed plane, first class pilot Major Roman Volkov, is an experienced aviator, his total flight time was more than 300 hours, Galenko points out. “But the annual flight time of the crew of this aircraft was 200 hours, and this is not enough,” the interlocutor continues. “At the same time, different crews flew on it, so the hypothesis about the low flight time of the crew on this board is confirmed.”
The crashed Tu-154 itself is “an aircraft from the Chkalovsky airfield, which was in a separate squadron of the Ministry of Internal Affairs,” the interlocutor explains, adding: “I know the squadron commander, since literally a month ago I took schoolchildren there on an excursion.”
The main problem for front-line pilots in almost all countries is the very small amount of flight time the crew has flown, Galenko believes. “Corporate aircraft with high fuel consumption and comfortable cabins fly extremely rarely; the military pilots flying them have little annual flying time. And this greatly affects the level of training of the crew,” the interlocutor said. Back in Soviet times, pilots were forced to undergo simulator retraining even after vacation, but military pilots on these aircraft (the “ceremonial aircraft” of the Chkalovsky airfield) have breaks in flights of more than one month, Galenko notes.
Piloting this aircraft is an inadequate task for pilots with short flight hours, the expert summarizes.
“Oncoming on takeoff, passing on the flight level”
The expert believes that unfavorable weather conditions could not have been the cause of the disaster. “There were no dangerous weather conditions during the incident, the wind was fair during takeoff. At an elevation angle of 20 degrees, it was five meters per second,” Galenko emphasizes.
The peculiarity of Adler Airport is that takeoff and landing are carried out towards the sea. You cannot take off towards the mountains under any circumstances, there is fog there, the expert adds.
“Unfavorable conditions would be a tailwind (take-off is always carried out against the wind, pilots even wish each other “a headwind on takeoff, a tailwind on the flight level”), as well as heat - a plane takes off much better in the cold than in hot weather. However, even in the case of a tailwind and heat, the Tu-154 engine has a huge reserve of thrust. There was no icing or thunderstorms; other aircraft did not report high turbulence,” adds Galenko.
Weather conditions in the area of the airport in Adler at the time of the Tu-154 crash are assessed as easy for piloting an aircraft, Roshydromet reported, which was quoted by "". “About five in the morning Moscow time, the temperature at the ground is +5, the wind is 5 m/s, visibility is 10 km. The weather conditions are quite normal,” the department emphasized. Sochi airport, from where the Tu-154 took off, continued to operate as normal, media reported.
At the same time, according to the online scoreboard, four flights were canceled in Adler on Sunday morning.
Weather conditions have repeatedly caused the death of aircraft around the world. On March 19 of this year, a Boeing 737-800 flying from Dubai crashed while landing in Rostov-on-Don. Due to bad weather, the airliner was unable to land after two attempts, and after making another circle, it crashed near the runway, killing 55 passengers and 7 crew members. The investigation into the causes of the disaster continues.
On August 22, 2006, a Tu-154M airliner flying from Anapa to St. Petersburg crashed near Donetsk after a collision with a severe thunderstorm. There were 170 people on board. The cause of the disaster was blamed on the pilots' erroneous actions when trying to avoid a storm front. On February 12, 2002, an Iranian airline Tu-154 crashed near the Iranian city of Khorramabad, with 119 people on board. The plane crash occurred after difficult weather conditions.
Investigation, versions
"Flaps!" And then: “Commander, we are falling!” These were the last words of one of the Tu-154 crew members, recorded by the aircraft’s flight recorder.
As Kommersant wrote on Wednesday, citing the opinion of experts interviewed by the newspaper, failure to retract the flaps at the start is an unpleasant, but not fatal event. The way out of this situation is described in detail in the Tu-154 flight manual; these actions are constantly practiced by the crews in simulators. The pilots compensate for the diving moment that occurs during such an incident with the steering wheel and with the help of the aircraft stabilizer (the horizontal tail located in the tail). This allows you to level the car and return to the departure airfield. But the crew of the Tu-154 of the Ministry of Defense, the newspaper writes, for some reason could not solve the problem of failed flaps, but on the contrary, “with their actions they could only aggravate the emergency, but not yet critical situation that arose on board” - apparently starting Pull the steering wheels too actively and at the same time increase the operating speed of the engines. As a result, the plane could reach supercritical angles of attack, lose speed and fall into the sea.
Earlier, TASS reported, citing a source in law enforcement agencies, that The Tu-154 crash over the sea occurred when the pilots, as expected, removed the mechanization that increases the lift of the wing during takeoff. “At the same time, for still unclear reasons, the plane was flying with a large pitch angle,” said the agency’s source. “Apparently, it stalled from the flight level during a maneuver to the right. As a result, at the end of the turn, it collided with the surface of the water with a left roll at a speed of about 510 km/h". In addition, the plane was chattering from side to side." At a large positive pitch angle, the plane's nose turns up excessively and it loses lift. Agency sources do not rule out a combination of several causes of the disaster at the same time, including both technical and human factors.
The recorders were found early Tuesday morning. “At 5 hours 42 minutes Moscow time, at a distance of 1600 meters from the shore at a depth of 17 meters, the main flight recorder was discovered by the Falcon remote-controlled vehicle. In the next few hours, it will be delivered by a military transport aircraft to the Central Research Institute of the Air Force to Lyubertsy, near Moscow, whose specialists will decipher it,” said a statement from the Ministry of Defense, which was quoted by TASS.
Divers from the Epron vessel, which is searching for the dead, recovered 15 bodies as of 9:00 am on Wednesday.
RIA Novosti quoted its source, who told the agency about the time frame for decoding flight data recorded by flight recorders: “From experience, I can report that it takes from one day to several years. It all depends on the degree of damage to the film. In the conditions of the Tu-154 disaster, there is reason to believe that everything was preserved.”
Data was also provided that at night, at a distance of 1,700 meters from the coast at a depth of about 30 meters, five fragments of the aircraft were discovered in addition to those raised earlier. “These are several parts of the fuselage, fragments of engines, various mechanisms and assemblies,” reports TASS.
As Interfax reported with reference to the FSB, the main working versions of the Tu-154 crash in the Black Sea, which occurred on December 25, are “foreign objects entering the engine, low-quality fuel, which resulted in loss of power and engine failure, piloting error, technical malfunction airplane."
On Tuesday morning, the possibility of foreign objects getting into the engine came to the fore. As Kommersant reported, a coast guard officer of the FSB border troops, who was on a boat in the waters of Sochi at the time of the plane crash, said that instead of gaining altitude, the plane quickly descended to the surface of the sea with its nose unnaturally raised up, after which it touched the water with its tail.
At the same time, the NSN agency quotes the former Deputy Minister of Civil Aviation of the USSR, honored pilot Oleg Smirnov, who expressed his doubts: “The witness’s information can hardly be trusted one hundred percent, because all this happened at night. Imagine, it’s night, you can’t see anything, and you suddenly see that the plane is flying with its nose up. How is this possible? Yes, his headlights were on, their light was visible. Where was the witness? If at sea, then something could be seen, if from the shore, then he only saw a departing plane. It is impossible to see the configuration of a receding aircraft at night,” he said. NSN Smirnov.
“At present, no signs and facts indicating the possibility of committing a terrorist act or sabotage on board an aircraft have been received,” the Russian FSB Central Operations Center told the Interfax agency on Monday. They also noted that there is a video recorder that members of the investigation team are working with. In addition, eyewitnesses to the crash of the airliner have been identified.
Important evidence is the fragments of the plane already raised from the water and the bodies of those killed in the plane crash. No traces of explosives were found on them. Also, no damage characteristic of an explosion or missile hit is detected. Based on this, a source from the Interfax agency familiar with the situation concludes that “the version of the terrorist attack has not been confirmed at the moment.”
As an argument in favor of this version, observers cite the fact that no alarm signal was received about the pilots. In the event of a terrorist attack, they really might not have time to file it. But the agency’s source explains this circumstance differently: “The fact that the pilot did not give an SOS signal is explained by the fact that the pilots were in a stressful state: in a critical condition, they tried to escape, it was a matter of seconds. And it is clear that they had no time for that.” to give a signal."
Earlier, also citing a source familiar with the situation, Interfax reported that according to witness testimony and other objective data obtained during the investigation, “the plane could not gain altitude for some reason - possibly overload and technical malfunction - crashed into the sea." The plane flew low, without gaining altitude, for an unusually long time, the source emphasized from the words of witnesses to the incident. “We are most likely talking about a possible breakdown of the units responsible for gaining altitude, or insufficient engine thrust. At the same time, the human factor cannot be ruled out, which could have contributed to the emergence of a critical situation,” he told the agency.
Poor quality fuel is unlikely to cause a plane crash. According to an Interfax source, other aircraft refueled at Sochi airport at the same time as the crashed plane completed their flights without accidents.
He also noted: “At this stage, the version of a terrorist attack is practically excluded,” - it is refuted by the available objective materials, including eyewitness testimony.
Earlier, Russian news agencies, citing a source in the special services, reported: “The Tu-154 took off from the Chkalovsky airfield, where passengers and luggage were carefully searched and checked.” “It was planned to refuel in Mozdok, but due to weather conditions it was moved to Adler, and thus there was no information in advance that the plane would be refueled at Sochi airport.” It was also reported that at Adler airport the plane was taken under guard, only two border guards and a customs officer were allowed on board, and no food was served on board. Only the navigator left the plane to control the refueling, and it itself was carried out by regular personnel. These circumstances on Monday gave reason to say that “at the moment there is no evidence in favor of a terrorist attack, and the security authorities and the investigation do not consider this version as the main one.”
The crash occurred in almost ideal weather for flying. The aircraft was piloted by experienced first class pilot Roman Volkov. Manufactured in 1983, the Tu-154 was overhauled 2 years ago and underwent scheduled maintenance this fall.
Russian Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov, who headed the government commission, attributed the large spread of debris from the Defense Ministry's Tu-154 plane (which some observers point to as a sign of a terrorist attack) to the large current in the area. President Vladimir Putin ordered the formation of a government commission to determine the causes of the disaster. The President also instructed to provide all necessary assistance to the relatives of the victims.
According to the chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, Viktor Ozerov, the version of a terrorist attack is “completely excluded”: “The plane of the Ministry of Defense, Russian airspace, there cannot be such a version here,” he told RIA Novosti. Ozerov suggested that the Tu-154 failed to achieve the required turning trajectory over the sea after takeoff.
At the same time, sources of the St. Petersburg publication Fontanka reported that the FSB is working out a version of the terrorist attack and is checking everyone who had access to the Tu-154 airliner.
The investigation into the criminal case of the crash of a Tu-154 aircraft of the Ministry of Defense over the Black Sea, on behalf of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia, Alexander Bastrykin, was transferred to the Central Office of the Investigative Committee. This was reported on Sunday by... O. Head of the Department of Interaction with the Media of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Svetlana Petrenko."On instructions from the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Alexander Bastrykin, a criminal case was opened on the grounds of a crime under Article 351 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Violation of flight rules that resulted in grave consequences"), regarding the crash of a Tu plane -154 in the Krasnodar Territory were transferred to the Central Office of the Investigative Committee of Russia to conduct the most complete and objective investigation."
On Monday, Interfax reported that the military investigation department of the Russian Investigative Committee for the Sochi garrison opened a criminal case on the grounds of a crime under Art. 351 (violation of flight rules or preparation for them).
Tragedy
On Sunday morning, a Tu-154 plane of the Russian Ministry of Defense flying to Syria from Sochi airport fell into the water about 2 minutes after takeoff. There were 92 people on the plane, including eight crew members, two civil servants, eight military personnel, almost the entire choir of the Alexandrov Ensemble, ballerinas, nine television journalists, as well as Elizaveta Glika, known as Doctor Lisa.
Part of the composition of the Academic Song and Dance Ensemble of the Russian Army named after. A. V. Alexandrova flew to Syria to the Khmeimim base to congratulate Russian military personnel on the New Year. His boss and artistic director, General Valery Khalilov, also flew with him.
Executive Director of the NGO "Fair Aid" Elizaveta Glinka accompanied the humanitarian cargo for the Tishrin University Hospital in Latakia.
People carry flowers to the building in Moscow where the Song and Dance Ensemble is located. Alexandrova, this Zemledelchesky lane, 20, building 1, to the building on st. Pyatnitskaya, 17/4 building 1, which houses the Elizaveta Glinka Fair Aid Foundation, as well as the Ostankino television center.
On the day of the crash, active search and rescue operations began, to which all the forces of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the South of Russia and reinforcements from Moscow were deployed. The rescue operation involved ships, helicopters and unmanned vehicles of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Fragments of the Tu-154 hull were discovered 1.5 kilometers from the coast at a depth of 50-70 meters. The bodies of the dead are also being discovered. According to the Ministry of Defense, as of mid-day on December 26, 45 ships and vessels (one and a half times more than the day before), 12 airplanes, and 10 helicopters are searching at the site of the Tu-154 crash. In the evening we managed to lift a large fragment of the fuselage.
In connection with the plane crash, the Russian Ministry of Defense has set up a hotline, telephone number: 8-800-100-1886. More than 3 thousand people are taking part in search and rescue operations in the Black Sea.
The President declared Monday a day of mourning for those killed in the Tu-154 crash.
Dead
Crew composition of Tu-154 85572:
1. Mr. Volkov R.V.
2. Mr. Rovensky A.S.
3. p/p-k Petukhov A.N.
4. Mr. Mamonov A.V.
5. Art. Lt. Hairdressers V.N.
6. Mr. Tregubov V.A.
7. Art. Lieutenant Sushkov B.S.
8. Art. Lt Sukhanov A.O.
List of persons transported on the aircraft:
Military personnel:
1. g/l-t Khalilov V.M.
2. p-k Khasanov A.B.
3. p-k Vaganov A.I.
4. pk Ivanov A.Yu.
5. p/p-k Kolosovsky A.V.
6. Mr. Dolinsky A.I.
7. p-k Negrub A.N.
8. Mr. Abrosimov S.S.
Federal civil servants:
1. Gubankov A.N.
2. Badrutdinova O.T.
International public organization "Fair Aid":
1. Glinka E.P.
Mass media:
1.Runkov D.A.
2. Denisov V.V.
3. Soydov A.A.
4. Luzhetsky M.V.
5.Obukhov P.K.
6. Pestov O.M.
7. Rzhevsky V.V.
8. Suranov A.A.
9.Tolstov E.V.
FBGU "Ensemble named after. Alexandrova":
1. Sonnikov A.V.
2. Guzhova L.A.
3. Ivashko A.N.
4. Brodsky V.A.
5. Bulochnikov E.V.
6. Golikov V.V.
7. Osipov G.L.
8. Sanin V.V.
10. Buryachenko B.B.
11. Bobovnikov D.V.
12. Bazdyrev A.K.
13. Belonozhko D.M.
14. Beschasinov D.A.
15. Vasin M.A.
16. Georgiyan A.T.
17.Davidenko K.A.
18. Deniskin S.I.
19. Zhuravlev P.V.
20. Zakirov P.P.
21.Ivanov M.A.
22.Ivanov A.V.
23. Kotlyar S.A.
24. Kochemasov A.S.
25. Krivtsov A.A.
26. Litvyakov D.N.
27. Mokrikov A.O.
28. Morgunov A.A.
29. Nasibulin Zh.A.
30. Novokshanov Yu.M.
31. Polyakov V.V.
32. Savelyev A.V.
33. Sokolovsky A.V.
34. Tarasenko A.N.
35. Trofimov A.S.
36. Uzlovsky A.A.
37. Khalimon B.JI.
38. Shtuko A.A.
39. Kryuchkov I.A.
40. Ermolin V.I.
41.Bykov S.JI.
42. Kolobrodov K.A.
43. Korzanov O.V.
44. Larionov I.F.
45. Lyashenko K.I.
46. Mikhalin V.K.
47th senior school Popov V.A.
48. Razumov A.A.
49. Serov A.S.
50.Shakhov I.V.
51. Archukova A.A.
52. Gilmanova P.P.
53. Ignatieva N.V.
54. Klokotova M.A.
55. Korzanova E.I.
56. Pyryeva L.A.
57. Satarova V.I.
58.Trofimova D.S.
59. Khoroshova L.N.
60. Tsvirinko A.I.
61.Shagun O.Yu.
62. Gurar L.I.
63. Suleymanov B.R.
64. Stolyar I.V.
The Tu-154 aircraft of the Russian Ministry of Defense, which crashed in the Black Sea near Sochi, was technically sound. The head of the flight safety service of the Russian Armed Forces, Sergei Baynetov, announced this last night on the Rossiya 24 TV channel.
Thus, the defense department, practically with its own hands, cut off one of the most preferable versions of the terrible disaster over the Black Sea, which claimed the lives of 92 citizens of the Russian Federation.
Whether this statement is actually true or not remains to be seen by investigators and the numerous experts assigned to investigate Sunday's disaster. All the rest can do is either trust the arguments of experts (which throughout yesterday differed exactly the opposite), or try to compare the available indisputable facts themselves. It is possible that in the foreseeable future this will be the only way to find at least some explanation for what happened, and at the same time a reason to think about its consequences.
Why is this necessary? Probably, in order to try to find the truth, the desire for which has always been characteristic of a reasonable person.
From version to sabotage
At the moment, the investigation is considering several versions of what happened:
Technical malfunction of the aircraft,
weather factor,
Human factor (pilot/controller error),
Let us note that we are not trying to put forward our own versions, but only evaluate and compare existing ones.
Technology and weather
So, if you believe the words of Sergei Baynetov, and there is no reason not to trust them, the first reason - a technical malfunction - is unlikely. Tu-154 is a rather old car, but at the same time extremely reliable. Considering the large number of aircraft of this brand produced, the number of accidents that occurred with it is very significant. However, in relative terms it is by no means anomalous, like some other, less successful machines. Moreover, even a cursory analysis of the incidents with the Tu-154 (all data is given on the page dedicated to the Tu-154 on Wikipedia) that led to their death suggests that they had little in common with what is already known about incident with the Ministry of Defense aircraft.
There is no reason to blame an engine failure or a bird getting into it. The Tu-154 is equipped with three engines at once, which eliminates the possibility of a disaster if one of them fails. Even if it had lost two engines at the same time (which is unlikely), the Tu-154 would hardly have instantly disintegrated in the air, as (judging by the comments of experts) happened to the Russian Defense Ministry aircraft.
The weather factor should also most likely be discounted, since the weather at the time of the accident, according to all sources, was quite suitable for takeoff of aircraft of this class.
Human factor
As for the human factor, which, we dare to assume, will be declared the true cause of the disaster, there are also many reasons for doubt. Firstly, as many experts stated just yesterday, the pilots of the Ministry of Defense are quite highly qualified and have extensive experience in flying this type of aircraft. And besides, the main “baseline scenarios” of plane crashes due to the fault of the crew have long been well known and bear little resemblance to the scenario of yesterday’s accident. The Tu-154 is a fairly simple and easy-to-operate machine, and in order to “drop” it by mistake, an unqualified crew needs to put in their “efforts” for quite a long time. The Russian Defense Ministry plane died almost instantly.
Bomb or MANPADS?
The version of the terrorist attack, despite the seeming impossibility of such a scenario (given the status of the aircraft), suddenly begins to look very plausible.
First of all, the similarity with last year’s crash of a Russian passenger airliner over Sinai is striking, when communication with the plane was cut off as instantly and unexpectedly as yesterday over Sochi. Both planes almost immediately disintegrated in the air, with no indication of any attempt by the crew to save the plane.
In the first and second cases, the disaster scenario shows signs of an explosion on board. The only difference is that in the first it has already been proven.
The chairman of the public council at the interregional investigative department for transport of the Investigative Committee of Russia, Sergei Gruzd, commented very wisely and skillfully on this version in his interview with RBC. According to the expert, the plane could have been subject to external influence: the plane could have been attacked from a man-portable anti-aircraft missile system (MANPADS) or an explosive device could have gone off in its cabin.
Sergei Gruzd explains his version by saying that in the event of technical problems on board, the crew would have time to report the incident to the ground, but in the case of the Tu-154 crash, no signals were received to dispatchers, and its connection with the ground was lost almost instantly.
According to the expert, the version of the terrorist attack cannot be omitted, including due to the peculiarities of the access control in Chkalovsky, where the Tu-154 began its fatal flight. According to him, at airfields of this type, where, along with aircraft of civil airlines, there are passenger aircraft of the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Emergency Situations and special services, there is a special procedure for allowing passengers on board. And if at an ordinary civilian airport people are searched several times before departure, and their luggage and outerwear are also carefully checked, then passengers can be allowed to fly on a service flight only after their name is checked against the boarding list.
Experts also suggest that a “parcel” containing an explosive device was handed over to one of the passengers or crew members, allegedly for someone in Syria. The attackers could have delivered the fatal “package” both in Chkalovsky and in Adler during the refueling of the plane.
The version with the influence of an “external factor” was also confirmed by civil aviation pilot Vladimir Kormuzov. “Given the weather conditions and the fact that the plane belonged to the Ministry of Defense, as well as the fact that it was heading to Latakia and keeping in mind the situation in the world, this could have been an external influence,” Kormuzov noted.
Declaration of war?
Of course, the scenario with the shelling of the Tu-154 from MANPADS, given by Sergei Gruzdem, does not look very plausible, if only because the trace of the fired missile would be clearly visible from the ground and from the air, which cannot be said about the possible carrying of an explosive device on board. In any case, the version with an explosion on board seems quite plausible, especially considering the nature of last year’s tragedy in Sinai.
And from this moment the saddest thing begins. If the cause of the death of a Russian Defense Ministry aircraft with such a colorful and representative composition of passengers is a terrorist attack, there are grounds to take a different look at many of the events that have occurred in recent days. First of all, to the capture of Syrian Aleppo after prolonged fighting, the death of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, whose killer shouted the words “for Aleppo,” and to the destination of yesterday’s fatal Tu-154 flight.
Putting everything together and conditionally accepting the terrorist attack as the main version of yesterday’s catastrophe, we can come to the disappointing conclusion that the murder of the ambassador in Turkey, and the death of a military aircraft with artists, journalists and an excellent doctor are nothing more than a declaration of war on Russia - a terrible and bloody one .
In conclusion, we would like to repeat once again that we do not put forward our own versions, but only try to analyze and draw conclusions from the existing ones.
The first two versions could well be justified by weather conditions. If not for one "but". The fact is that the meteorological situation in Sochi and its environs at the time the airliner took off at 5:20 Moscow time was quite acceptable. It is reported that visibility was within 10 kilometers, the east wind was no more than five meters per second and the pressure was 763 millimeters of mercury. Such conditions are unlikely to pose a threat to the aircraft.
There were no particular complaints about the condition of the airliner itself. Despite the fact that at the time of the crash the plane had been in service for 33 years, and its total flight time was 6,689 hours, it was repaired in 2014. Moreover, in September of this year the car underwent scheduled maintenance.
It is worth noting that this age and number of flight hours are quite normal for aircraft such as the Tu-154. For example, the American C-135 Stratolifter, which was put into operation more than 50 years ago, still feels quite good in the sky and is clearly not going to retire. However, the version of the technical problem is the main one at the moment.
The version of the human factor, that is, the pilot’s error that led to the disaster, is also considered. However, it is worth noting that the crashed plane was flown by a very experienced crew. First of all, this is first class pilot Roman Volkov, who has more than three thousand hours in the sky behind him. In addition, the navigator of the crashed airliner, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Petukhov, who in 2011 showed miracles of piloting when landing a “dancing plane” of the same model, was considered an undoubted professional in his field.
However, according to experts, the Tu-154 is a rather difficult machine to control and places very strict demands on its pilots. And three thousand hours of flight experience may not be enough for such a “capricious” aircraft. Therefore, the version of the human factor cannot be discarded.
Finally, the possibility of a terrorist attack cannot be ruled out, especially in the current extremely turbulent political situation. The crash of a Russian airliner in the Sinai last year was a consequence of the activity of terrorist groups there, which declared a “holy war” on Russia over its intervention in the fight against radicals in Syria.
At the same time, previously experts have repeatedly complained that the level of security in military passenger transport is much lower than in the commercial sector. For example, pre-flight inspection is reduced to an empty formality in the form of checking the list of passengers.
In such conditions, it can be assumed that an explosive device could well have been placed on board, for example, during loading. That is why, after the disaster, the special services began to check all those who could have access to the plane at Sochi airport.
However, among other things, a few hours after the plane crashed, an interesting video appeared on the Internet, which attracted the attention of many Internet users and social networks. It shows a recording from a CCTV camera at one of the Sochi airports. Somewhere in the fourth or fifth second, you can clearly see how a light suddenly flashes in the dark sky, after which it also quickly goes out. It is assumed that the recording was made this morning, and the flash on the recording is nothing more than the Tu-154 crash.
At the same time, experts argue that such an outbreak could only occur if there was an explosion on the plane or it was attacked by man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems from the ground. However, the authenticity of the film remains to be determined by competent specialists.
There was also a version that the Russian plane could have been hijacked. This version, in particular, was voiced by the Rossiya-1 TV channel, which refers to the point of view of the former shift manager of the center of the unified air traffic organization of Russia Vitaly Andreev. “After take-off and a short flight - two minutes - the plane lost contact and did not transmit a signal to the ground about any problems, which may indicate that there was an emergency situation on board: either an external influence on the aircraft, or an encounter with an obstacle, which was unlikely to be there,” the expert said.
In any case, specialists have a huge amount of hard and painstaking work ahead to find out the true reasons for what happened. At the moment, it is impossible to be more or less confident in any of the presented versions. One way or another, only a thorough investigation with the involvement of competent specialists will help shed the light of truth on what happened.
At the same time, it should be noted that investigators should carefully approach the version of a terrorist attack. The Russian plane crash in Sinai last year comes to mind again. At that time, during the initial investigation, the version of the terrorist attack was not the main one, but it was soon confirmed.
Let us remind you that the crash of the TU-154 plane occurred on Sunday morning over the Black Sea. The liner was heading for Syrian Latakia.
There were reports that there were 92 or 93 people on board the plane. Among them are the Alexandrov Academic Song and Dance Ensemble, journalists from Russian TV channels, famous doctor Elizaveta Glinka and crew members. They all died.
07.01.2017 11:58
I had problems posting an article called , one of the sites with which I have recently been collaborating refused to publish it.
In the end, on the morning of December 31, the article was published by the freest FREE PRESS in the Russian Federation. Thanks to them. The whole point is who you (me, you, he, she, they) serve: the people or the government.
I serve the people, so it was difficult for the site that serves the authorities to take material containing suspicions about the death of TU-154.
Here are some more wonderful thoughts on the death of the TU-154, from my friend, a military expert, I received them an hour ago:
Mysterious “mechanical impact”
Original 12/31/2016, 09:39
Eduard Limonov about the official version of the Tu-154 crash
“The main phase of the work has been completed,” the most responsible persons told us at a press conference, above whom only the Prime Minister and the President of the Russian Federation, namely Lieutenant General Sergey Baynetov, Head of the Flight Safety Service of the Russian Armed Forces. And the Minister of Transport sat next to him Maxim Sokolov. We were talking about work to extract from the water the remains of passengers and pieces of the Tu-154 aircraft that died on December 25.
Baynetov listed how many pieces of the plane were raised, clarified the number of “black boxes”, it turns out there were two of them, said that 19 bodies and over two hundred fragments of bodies were raised to the surface, but asked new riddles.
It turns out that the recordings of the two “black boxes” have not yet been decrypted, but it turns out that there was a short communication between the Tu-154 pilots and air traffic controllers, it lasted only 10 seconds. At the same time, the Tu pilot said “one phrase, it speaks of the beginning of a special situation.”
The lieutenant general did not say what this phrase was. And he didn’t say what kind of special situation it was.
But he suddenly explained the following:
“A terrorist attack is not just an explosion. There may be other reasons as well. In addition to the explosion, there could have been some kind of mechanical impact on board. The terrorist attack was not necessarily related to the explosion.”
Now we are all thinking (and “we all” is the majority of the population of the Russian Federation) what kind of mechanical impact happened on board TU-154.
Almost simultaneously with the press conference, it was discovered that the “air base in Chkalovsky” was being disbanded. If it coincides that right now the air base from which the unfortunate Tu-154 took off is being disbanded, then the conclusion arises that the air base is being disbanded as punishment for the death of this plane.
I would like to make an awkward joke, asking if they planted some kind of creepy lizard in Tu at the military airfield in Chkalovsk, does everyone remember the movie “Alien”? And the lizard chewed 73 passengers into 230 pieces.
But in such situations one does not joke. A mournful silence is appropriate here.
Judging by a few “tip of the iceberg”, these are:
A ban was introduced the very next day after the death of the Tu-154 on all civilian ships, yachts and boats going to sea. In order to hide from prying eyes what was found (bodies of passengers with strange injuries?)
Total patrolling by detachments of the National Guard of the coast. (For the same purpose: to hide incredibly mutilated bodies from prying eyes?)
Disbandment of the air base in Chkalovsky. (For negligence in bringing something on board the aircraft that could have a “mechanical effect”?).
It becomes clear that the investigators of the death of TU-154 already know what’s going on there.
And, naturally, they reported this to the highest officials of the state.
And they hide from us what the matter is.
And now they are intensely thinking about how they can lie to us convincingly without scaring us.
What's the matter?
Possible events:
Either the attackers got into the plane - sympathizers of the Caliphate suicide bombers with machetes or axes and chopped everyone into pieces. “Soldiers of the Caliphate” do not necessarily, as we know, act on command from the Caliphate; more often they are volunteers who have sworn allegiance to the Caliphate from afar.
And the plane was tempting for the “soldiers of the Caliphate.” Not only was he flying to Syria, but the military ensemble named after Alexandrov was also flying on it - a symbol of the Russian army throughout the world. The military team was supposed to perform at the Russian Khmeimim airbase, a super-attractive goal.
Or (not quite true “mechanical impact”) they sprayed some kind of gas on the plane, like the one that our special services used at one time with the best intentions in the theater on Dubrovka, where the performance of “Nord-Ost” was taking place.
As for the inaccessibility of Chkalovsky airport, it is a dubious inaccessibility. Those who have flown there in recent years say controls there are inferior to those at civilian airports.
“Mechanical impact”!?
Well, don’t languish, tell me what happened on the Tu-154 plane a couple of hours before dawn on December 25, in those 10 seconds that Lieutenant General Baynetov reported.
You already know!
And we have the right to know.
