The main reasons for plane crashes. How often do planes crash? Air crash statistics

With the development of means mass media The public is showing interest in the patterns of aircraft accidents and the statistics of aircraft crashes. This is due to a review of major disasters civil aviation. When planning a vacation or business trip, a person often wonders if something bad will happen to him. The answer can be found by resorting to aviation statistics, which determine how often planes crash and for what reason.

Air crash statistics

Airplane and train are considered the safest means of transportation. Having familiarized yourself with the statistics of disasters on different types transport, you can be sure that getting into an accident on a bus is much easier than becoming a victim of an accident in the air. Most crashes are due to negligence of the authorities (terrorist attack) or to the error of the pilot and technical services.

About 10 thousand flights take to the skies every day (3.65 million per year). From the total annual air passenger traffic, the number of 1000 people is called, how many die on average per year. The mortality rate over the past 50 years has decreased from a probability of 1:264 thousand to 1:127.5 million. Over the entire existence of aviation (100 years), about 150 thousand people died.

In Russia

Today the situation with disasters is unpredictable. About 60% of the Russian-made aircraft fleet is worn out. The rest is purchased abroad. Basically, these are Boeing models and Airbuses. The likelihood of a passenger transport crash will only increase over the years: it is unknown how the equipment will behave at the end of its service life.

Over the past 20 years, Russia has consistently ranked 2nd in the number of plane crashes after the United States. If private aeronautics had been developed in Russia, perhaps the country would already be on the first line of the rating. Since 1945, about 350 accidents have occurred in Russia, excluding military and private aircraft accidents. More than 8 thousand people died.

The smallest number of plane crashes was recorded in 2006-2007: 7 per year.

According to the CIS Interstate Aviation Council (IAC), 2016 showed the worst statistics: 56 crashes with a total of 143 casualties. Since the beginning of 2018, there have already been 32 air accidents with 116 victims. The most significant was the recent crash of the Saratov Airlines AN-148 flight 703 Moscow-Orsk, which occurred on February 11 near the village of Argunovo in the Moscow region. The plane crashed near Domodedovo without gaining altitude, killing 71 people.

The latest version of the prosecutor's office has suggested that the fuselage was not treated with anti-icing fluid. Decoding of the voice recorder recordings showed a dispute between the pilots about the “frozen” pressure and speed sensors. Clarifications continued until the fall.

According to eyewitnesses, the plane collided with a Russian Post helicopter: letters and parcels on board were found at the scene of the accident. According to information from the media, at the time of takeoff, the flight attendant was talking to her grandmother about the fact that they had taken off (everything was fine).

According to statistics, the percentage of falls during takeoffs is 17%. But the crew made a fatal mistake. On the same day, a small plane crashed Turkish airline with 11 passengers.

Air crash specialists were able to deduce the circumstances of the accidents and their likelihood:

• crew errors during landing - 51%;
• malfunctions and weather conditions during climb - 8%;
• with a decrease - 3%;
• during loading - 5%;
• during approach - 7%.

After accidents, scary photos, video, details of the crashes. People's anxiety and concern about their own safety is increasing. Over the past 10 years, Russia has been the leading country in the number of crashes. Unfortunately, most of the passengers had no chance of escape, even when the plane was at low altitude. There are also lucky ones who managed to survive after incredible falls. In most cases, these are flight attendants and crew members.

In the world

Most crashes occur in the United States, Russia and Canada (more than 1,300 as of 2018). The number of victims is approaching 20 thousand. Next come Brazil, Colombia, Great Britain, France, India, Indonesia and Mexico.

Over the past 10 years, the first positions have remained with the following countries: Russia, the USA, Ukraine, Congo and Germany. At the same time, the United States remains the leader in the number of victims. This is due to increased cargo and passenger traffic. Recorded daily a large number of accidents of private planes and helicopters, as well as small aircraft.

Over the past 5 years, there have been no major plane crashes recorded in the United States. After the September terrorist attacks with two Boeings, planes crashed, but with the number of passengers not exceeding 50 people.

A huge number of disasters are recorded in the military sphere during training missions or during combat missions.

The largest number of tragedies were recorded in the 70s of the 20th century. Among them, the collision of two planes on March 28, 1977 near the island of Tenerife stands out, in which 583 people died.

International plane crashes include the tragedy of April 10, 2010. The crash occurred in the Smolensk region. On board the TU-154 flight Warsaw-Smolensk were the top management of Polish officials and President Lech Kaczynski. By official version the plane crashed while decreasing in altitude due to a snag on the tops of trees, which were difficult to see in foggy conditions. Smolensk air traffic controllers allowed landing at an airfield technically unequipped for “carcasses” on the urgent initiative of one of the ministers. A delegation of 96 people hurried to the funeral procession on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre.

A significant political disaster of our time was the shelling of a Malaysian Boeing 777 from Buk missile launchers from the territory of the Donetsk Republic (Ukraine) on July 17, 2014. The plane was flying flight KL 4103 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 298 passengers on board. Debris from a rocket attack was found near the village of Grabovo. The flight had a double (Boeing flight MH17) departing for Malaysia 17 minutes later. Ukrainian dispatchers, upon detecting the first Boeing on radar, sent it through the air corridor over the territory of the DPR (as usual), and MH17 - through the southern corridor (Russia), which became the main clue in the investigation of the incident.

During the inspection of the Boeing 777 by the DPR militia, conclusions were drawn about the death of passengers long before takeoff. Their bodies were depleted of a cadaverous odor that appeared for at least the 3rd day. Also unusual was the presence of a large amount of medicine and blood serum among the wreckage, which is not typical for a passenger airliner. There was practically no blood in the general compartment, while the cockpit was flooded with it.

Most conspiracy theorists believe the disaster was staged. Presumably, the corpses were taken from a Malaysian airliner that disappeared without a trace in early March. The incident itself was necessary to accuse Russia of using force. The true circumstances are still unknown. The final investigation is unlikely to clarify the situation.

It also remains unclear who the people on board were and who was mourned by the relatives of the victims, most of whom were Dutch. Locals Donetsk are confident that the rebels' BUK MANPADS were not the cause of the explosion. Shortly before the crash, a Su-35 was seen in the sky.

August 26, 2006. A Tu-154M flight from Anapa to St. Petersburg crashed on the territory of the DPR. The cause was a lightning storm that sent the plane into a flat tailspin, and 170 bodies of the dead were discovered.

In terms of the number of victims in aircraft accidents, a different picture emerges. The top three are the USA, Russia and Colombia. The list continues with Brazil, France, India, Indonesia, Canada, Great Britain, and Mexico.

Photos from the crash site of the Airbus A321 in the Sinai Peninsula

Some of the largest accidents are the crash of an Airbus A320 in the Java Sea (Indonesia) due to a thunderstorm, an Airbus A321 in the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt) as a result of a terrorist attack, and an Airbus A320 due to the suicide of a German pilot, as a result of which the board crashed into the ridge of the Provençal Alps ( France).

Why planes crash: main reasons

Human factor

Among the causes of plane crashes, in most cases, the human factor is cited: inexperience of pilots or the inability to correct the situation. An example is the tragedy of Alexandrov’s ensemble, which was flying to a charity concert on December 25, 2016.

Utair Tu-154, en route to Syria, crashed due to spatial orientation violation 2 minutes after takeoff from Sochi. The plane crashed into the Black Sea. No one managed to survive.

Another Tu-154 crash near Khabarovsk on December 7, 1995 occurred due to improper fuel generation in the wings. There were no survivors: the board collided with Mount Bo-Jausa and exploded.

Safety violation

The second most common cause of accidents is safety violations. On the night of March 23, 1994, a plane crash occurred due to the transfer of the main helm to the pilot's 15-year-old son. The hope for autopilot did not materialize. The boy, imitating the captain, began to turn the steering wheel and accidentally turned off autopilot. The ship managed to gain a fairly high list. It was possible to restore balance at the level of the edges of the trees, which caused the final fall. Flight SU593 Moscow-Hong Kong crashed near Mezhdurechensk. No one managed to escape.

technical issues

Third on the list of reasons are technical faults. Common ones include chassis failure, electronics and sensor failure, or engine failure (fire). Such incidents have happened to Ural Airlines aircraft.

On December 2, 2002, an experienced command landed the TU-154 without landing gear at Pulkovo Airport. There were no casualties.
The crash of the Siberia Airlines A310 in Irkutsk on July 9, 2006 occurred due to the transition of one of the engines to takeoff mode during landing. As a result, the board stopped only after hitting the garage complex. The total number of deaths was 125. Those in the tail managed to survive (63 wounded and 25 unharmed).

One of possible reasons accidents may result in depressurization of the cockpit. Such an incident occurred with a Helios Airways Boeing on August 14, 2005. As a result of problems with the pressurization system, the cabin ran out of air, causing the pilots to lose consciousness. The plane hovered over Greek territory until it ran out of fuel. The board exploded upon impact with a rock 40 km from Athens.

The Belarusian airline Belavia has technical problems all the time. Particularly publicized was the case when the plane broke into two parts right on the runway. The Bombardier CRJ-100 was scheduled to take off from Yerevan airport to Minsk on February 14, 2008. Due to the roll of the wing, the side overturned, resulting in a fracture in the nose compartment. A fire occurred due to a fuel spill. There were no casualties, as people rushed to get out themselves through the crack that had formed.

Lack of professionalism

The next reason on the list is ignorance of one's business. Thus, due to the fault of the Yak-42 pilot of the Yaroslavl-Minsk flight, the Lokomotiv hockey team, flying to the KHL, died. The tragedy occurred on September 7, 2011 as a result of repeatedly pressing the brakes during takeoff. The plane took off from the ground beyond the runway, as it did not have time to accelerate. A few seconds later, at a height of 6 meters, there was a collision with a lighthouse near the river. Only one of the crew members (an engineer) survived. Despite the absurdity of the situation, there are rumors in Russian aviation about the lack of education of pilots and purchased diplomas.

Terrorist attack

Terrorist attacks are not counted in aviation statistics, but a large number of accidents are caused by recruited criminals. The biggest air crash in the last 10 years was the accident with the A321 (VP BOC) Kogalymavia, flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg at the end of October 2015. Black box recordings revealed the sound of an explosion in the tail section. The wreckage of the airliner was scattered for many kilometers in the deserted desert.

Weather

Weather conditions play a significant role. Thus, in March 2016, a Flydubai Boeing 737 800 crashed during a re-entry approach to landing in Rostov-on-Don, which lasted about 2 hours. As a result, the airliner did not have enough fuel to complete the maneuver.

Aircraft also crash due to controller errors and the greed of airlines, which skimp on new parts, maintenance, and do not delve into the problems of vehicle wear and tear.

List of major aircraft accidents from 1990 to 2018

For the last 20 years, chronicles of plane crashes tell of numerous victims of aircraft. When compiling the list, disasters with more than 60 victims over the period from 1990 to 2018 were taken into account (the number of deaths is indicated in parentheses):

• 05.91: B767, Thailand (223);
• 07.91: DC-8-61, Saudi Arabia (261);
• 10.91: C-130H-30, Indonesia (135);
• 08.92: Tu-134, Ivanovo region (84);
• 09.92: C-130H-LM, Nigeria (158);
• 09.92: A300, Nepal (167);
• 12.92: B727, Libya (157);
• 01.94: Tu-154, Irkutsk region (125);
• 03.94: A310, Kemerovo region (75);
• 04.94: A300, Japan (264);
• 06.94: Tu-154, China (160);
• 12.95: Tu-154, Khabarovsk region (98);
• 12.95: B757, Colombia (159);
• 01.96: An-32, Zaire (298);
• 02.96: B757, Atlantic Ocean (189);
• 07.96: B747, USA (230);
• 08.96: Tu-154, Norway (141);
• 11.96: B727, Nigeria (144);
• 11.96: collision between B747 and Il-76, India (349);
• 08.97: B747, Guam (228);
• 09.97: A300, Indonesia (234);
• 02.98: A300, China (203);
• 09.98: MD-11, Canada (229);
• 10.99: B767, Atlantic Ocean (217);
• 01.2000: A310, Ivory Coast (169);
• 08.2000: A320, Bahrain (143);
• 07.01: Tu-154, Irkutsk region (145);
• 09.01: terrorist attacks B767 and B757 (2977);
• 10.01: SAM, Tu-154 shot down, Krasnodar region (63);
• 10.01: A300B4, USA (265);
• 05.02: BAC 1-11, Nigeria (149);
• 05.02: B747, Taiwan Strait (225);
• 07.02: Tu-154, Germany (71);
• 02.03: Il-76, Iran (275);
• 05.03: Yak-42, Türkiye (75);
• 12.03: B727, Benin (141);
• 01.04: B737, Egypt (148);
• 08.04: terrorist attacks Tu-154 and Tu-134, Rostov and Tula regions (89);
• 08.05: MD-82, Venezuela (160);
• 11.05: B737, Indonesia (149);
• 05.06: A320, Krasnodar region (113);
• 07.06: A310, Irkutsk region (125);
• 08.06: Tu-154, Ukraine (170);
• 09.06: B737, Brazil (154);
• 07.07 : A320, Brazil (199);
• 08.08: MD-82, Spain (154);
• 09.08: B737, Perm region (88);
• 06.09: A330, Atlantic Ocean (228);
• 06.09: A310, Comoros (152);
• 07.09: Tu-154, Iran (168);
• 04.10: Tu-154, Smolensk region (96);
• 05.10: B737, India (158);
• 07.10: A321, Pakistan (152);
• 06.12: MD-83, Nigeria (163);
• 03.14: B777, Indian Ocean (239);
• 07.14: B777, Ukraine (298);
• 12.14: A320, Indonesia (162);
• 10.15: A321, Egypt (224);
• 03.15: A320, France (150);
• 06.15: KC-130B, Indonesia (143);
• 03.16: B737, Rostov region (62);
• 05.16: A320, Mediterranean (66);
• 11.16: Avro RJ85, Colombia (71);
• 12.16: Tu-154, Krasnodar region (92);
• 06.17: Y-8, Myanmar (122).

Latest crashes

Since the beginning of 2018, many terrible tragedies have occurred, primarily affecting Russia. This is largely due to the situation in Syria, where the Russian military is providing humanitarian assistance. By coincidence, several military vehicles were shot down from the air.

• February 11, 2018: An-148, Moscow region (71 victims);
• February 18, 2018: ATR-72, Iran (66 killed);
• April 11, 2018: Il-76TD, Algeria (257 victims);
• May 18, 2018: B737, Cuba (112 dead).

If we look at the global picture of crashes in 2018, they occurred on charter flights. Several accidents occurred with helicopters on the wedding day: one couple died while approaching the church due to heavy fog, another couple escaped with a slight fright and continued to celebrate after falling from a height of several meters.

Unfortunately, information about whether objects were broken up from classified missions cannot be identified.

What planes crash most often?

The Russian aircraft manufacturing industry is one of the largest in the world market in both civil and military aviation. Serial production of passenger airliners has been launched for the Tu-204, An-148, SSJ100, Il-96, CR 929 models. PAK TA, Il-114 - 300 and Il-76TD-90A are at the development stage. The MS-21 model is undergoing flight tests.

Due to the modernization of the aviation industry, some models have lost their relevance. Among them are the Tu-134 and Tu-154, developed back in the USSR. Some airlines still operate worn-out Tu-154s, which were discontinued back in 1998. Aircraft accident statistics classify these two models as among the most dangerous and unreliable. Over the entire history of flights, many emergency situations have occurred on these aircraft, causing more than one tragedy. Il-76 closes the top three in terms of accidents on Russian flights.

An example is the unsuccessful landing of the Tu-134 in Samara on March 17, 2007. The landing gear could not maintain traction with the ground during landing in bad weather conditions. As a result, the fuselage of the airliner began to fall apart, and the wing and engine were torn off from the plane. Most people managed to escape. 6 of 57 passengers died.

The disaster with the amazing rescue of flight attendants occurred on board the Il-86 in Moscow on July 28, 2002. It should be noted that this was the only fall of this model due to a technical malfunction. On board the airliner flying to St. Petersburg there was only a crew of 16 people. The plane fell within a minute after takeoff in a forested area near Sheremetyevo due to the failure of the stabilizers. The pilots did not have time to activate their backup control. Only the female half of the cast, Tatyana Moiseeva and Arina Vinogradova, miraculously managed to escape from the flaming cabin. The fall was a foregone conclusion due to the illogical actions of the pilots.

In world practice, the most unpredictable aircraft is the Boeing 737 (made in the USA). In all the disasters, people had practically no chance. According to statistics, at the end of September 2018, 189 units were lost. models where the largest share is occupied by the Boeing 737 800.

The last major plane crash occurred on May 18, 2018 in Cuba. The number of victims is 112 people. The Havana-Holguin flight crashed due to an engine fire. The plane crashed onto a farm. The list of survivors included a man and three women. Only 1 passenger managed to survive. “Born in a Shirt,” 19-year-old Maylene Diaz Almaguer was sent to rehabilitation due to spinal damage and extensive burns.

A list of the worst aircraft according to BusinessWeek is presented. The rating review included aircraft operated around the world in quantities of 100 or more. When comparing models, the number of plane crashes per certain number of flight hours was taken into account.

Anti-security rating

1. Boeing 737 JT8D;
2. IL-76;
3. Tu-154;
4. Airbus A310;
5. McDonnell-Douglas DC-9;
6. Tu-134;
7. Boeing 727;
8. McDonnell-Douglas MD-80;
9. McDonnell-Douglas MC-10;
10. McDonnell-Douglas MD-11;
11. Boeing 737 CFMI;
12. Boeing 757;
13. Airbus A320;
14. Boeing 767;
15. Boeing 737 NG;
16. Boeing 747.

Based on the data, it will not be possible to predict the outcome of the flight, since no one is immune from tragedy. But the picture of plane crashes and their causes still allows us to reflect some statistical probabilities.

Safe aircraft

The Boeing 777 ranks first in safety: not a single plane crash in 200 million hours. and 4 minor accidents. Despite the volume and capacity of up to 500 people, the engines do their job perfectly.

On the 2nd Airbus location A340: 5 accidents in 13 million hours. Due to expensive maintenance, not every airline can boast of this aircraft.

Previous Airbus model The A330 takes a respectable 3rd place. No breakdowns or malfunctions. Only one disaster: 228 people drowned in Atlantic Ocean in 2008. Aeroflot operates more than 15 A330 models (VQ BEK, VQ BCQ and other flight numbers). Pobeda has 20 Boeing 737 800 in its fleet (VQ ​​BTI, VQ BTG, VQ BWG, etc.).

Reliable airlines

Various national air safety agencies and committees rank airlines based on various characteristics. The airliners that fell in different periods (their number) and the model range (safety) are taken into account.

British research looks at airline punctuality based on overall passenger traffic and number of flights.

In the world

According to EASA, the top twenty includes companies with an ideal reputation. They are recognized as the safest.

These include airlines:

1. Air New Zealand,
2. Alaska Airlines,
3. All Nippon Airways,
4. British Airways,
5. Cathay Pacific Airways,
6. Emirates,
7. Etihad Airways,
8. EVA Air,
9. Finnair,
10. Hawaiian Airlines,
11. Japan Airlines,
12. Lufthansa,
13. Qantas,
14. Royal Jordanian Airlines,
15. Scandinavian Airline System,
16. Singapore Airlines
17. Swiss,
18. Virgin Atlantic
19. Virgin Australia,
20. Qatar Airways.

In the entire history of these companies, there has not been a single crashed flight.

In Russia

The Federal Air Transport Agency provides a transparent description of each airline. The rating below was based on the volume and growth of passenger traffic, as well as depending on the kilometers flown.

Popularity rating

1. Aeroflot,
2. Siberia,
3. Russia,
4. Utair (UTair),
5. Ural Airlines (Ural Airlines),
6. Victory,
7. Globus (Globe),
8. Azur Air,
9. VIM-Avia,
10. Nordwind Airlines (North Wind).

Safety rating

Since passengers are more interested in safety, there is another rating that takes into account both the number of plane crashes and accidents over the past 30 years. Human losses (deaths of passengers and bystanders) are also assessed.

1. Victory,
2. Ural Airlines,
3. S7 Airlines (Siberia),
4. Yakutia,
5. Nordavia,
6. UTair,
7. Yamal.

Transaero could have made it into the top ten if it had not gone bankrupt back in 2015. She had a powerful new aircraft fleet and not a single disaster. The company's image is determined by its technical equipment, and not by its popularity among tourists over a certain period of time (taking into account package tours).

Modern technologies and developments in the aircraft industry make flights the safest. The chance of breaking is negligible. A factor influencing the future development of the industry will be quality pilot training. In Russia today there is a shortage of professional personnel. Old-school crews will soon retire, and younger pilots may not be able to cope with an emergency situation. Therefore, the quality and reliability of the aircraft come to the fore. This will significantly reduce the number of plane crashes due to insufficient experience or in difficult weather conditions.

Video on the topic

Do not worry. If you have a trip ahead, don’t hesitate to choose it. Airplane crashes are extremely rare, mainly due to a fatal combination of circumstances. What reasons can lead to a plane crash?

Many people are afraid to fly because they supposedly have no chance of surviving a plane crash. This is nothing more than a myth. The probability of surviving is approximately 95%. Thus, even if, by incredible chance, your plane gets into an accident, you will have a good chance of survival. Now that we have calmed down a little, we can move on to the causes of plane crashes.

Most of the plane crashes occur in a fairly short time interval. These are the first 3 minutes of flight and the last 8. In aviation parlance, this concept is known as “Plus Three/Minus Eight”. 80% of all aviation accidents happen exactly in these 11 minutes. The cause may be any of the following factors, or a combination of them.

Causes 22% of plane crashes. Despite the most thorough technical inspections before each flight, there is always a minimal probability of failure of any of the components of the most complex unit. To understand how minuscule this probability is, imagine the work of flight attendants. They have been flying every day for many years, but their profession is not even close to being among the most dangerous.

A technical malfunction may result from a bird strike. But, again, such a probability is extremely small. It is not for nothing that the classic example of such an accident is still considered to be the 1962 incident where a swan hit the engine of a United Airlines plane.

2. Pilot error

Humans tend to make mistakes. That is why the pilot’s participation in the control of modern aircraft, thanks to technology, is reduced to a minimum. Despite this, the notorious “human factor” causes 50% of aircraft accidents. This could be either overconfidence or a sudden heart attack.

3. Weather conditions

Heavy winds, fog, and snow are the cause of 12% of plane crashes. Despite the most accurate algorithms, weather forecasters' forecasts sometimes turn out to be wrong. In most cases, the maximum that threatens passengers is of varying degrees, however, in rare cases, the consequences can be more severe.

4. Deliberate actions

In 9% of cases, planes crash, like in detective thrillers. This includes terrorist attacks, hijacking attempts, planted explosive devices.

5. Other reasons

7% of plane crashes occur due to other factors. These are air traffic control errors, aircraft collisions, navigation errors, insufficient calculation of fuel reserves...

Now you know why planes crash, as well as the fact that it happens quite rarely. So, fly to your health.

Any plane crash immediately raises questions about the safety of airliners and the threat of terrorism. But until their causes are officially established, it is unreasonable to speculate about what could have caused the failure. However, there are several causes of airliner crashes that are more likely than others.

1. Pilot error

Over time, airplanes become more and more reliable, but at the same time, the number of accidents caused by pilot error is increasing. Currently it is about 4%. Aircraft are complex machines and require real skill to fly them. Because the pilot is actively interacting with the aircraft at every stage of flight, there are many opportunities for things to go wrong, from an incorrectly programmed computer to misjudging the amount of fuel for a climb.

Sometimes only a pilot can save your life

And while such mistakes are unforgivable, it is important to remember that the pilot may also be your last hope when the situation turns dire. For example, in January 2009, an Airbus A320 crashed into a flock of geese over New York. The ship's captain had to weigh all options and act very quickly. Using his extensive flying experience and knowledge of aircraft handling, he directed the aircraft into the Hudson River. Thus, the lives of 150 people were saved not thanks to computers or any automated systems. They were rescued by two pilots, although many fans of technological progress claim that people can be replaced by computers and dispatchers.

2. Mechanical problems with the airliner

Equipment failure still accounts for 20% of aircraft losses, despite improvements in manufacturing quality and design updates. Even though engines are more reliable than they were half a century ago, they still sometimes create catastrophic situations.

In 1989, a disintegrating fan blade caused the left engine to fail on a British airliner. Difficulty reading the instruments led the pilots to shut down the right engine instead of the damaged left engine. Due to the lack of working engines, the plane crashed on the airport runway, which led to the death and injury of many passengers and the captain of the ship himself.

Just recently, one of the Indonesian airliners also began to crash due to engine failure. It was only thanks to the skill of the pilots that he landed safely.

Sometimes new technologies also cause disruptions. In the 1950s, for example, for jet aircraft a new threat has emerged due to the introduction of high flights. Due to excess pressure on the body, the metal wore out. After several crashes, some aircraft models were taken out of service pending changes to their designs.

3. Bad weather conditions

Bad weather conditions lead to 10% of aircraft losses. Despite many electronic aids such as hydroscopic compasses, satellite navigation and the availability of weather data, aircraft are still caught in storms, snow and fog. In December 2005, one of the planes in America tried to land in a snowstorm. He left the runway and crashed into a row of standing cars. A small child was injured.

One of the most famous incidents due to bad weather occurred in 1958 when a British twin-engine passenger plane crashed while attempting to take off. Researchers determined that the ship was slowed down by runway contamination and was unable to reach the required speed. Surprisingly, lightning does not pose a threat to airliners, despite the fact that fear of it is quite common among passengers.

4. Terrorism

About 10% of aircraft losses are caused by sabotage. As with lightning, the risk associated with terrorism is much less than many people think. Nevertheless, there were numerous shocking attacks on aircraft. In September 1970, three passenger jets were hijacked in Jordan. This marked a watershed moment in aviation history and prompted greater safety awareness. Hijacked by representatives of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, these three planes were blown up in front of the world press. Despite all the security improvements, it is still possible for terrorists to board an airplane. Fortunately, this happens very rarely indeed.

5. Other human factors

The remaining losses are attributed to other types of human error. They may be authorized by air traffic controllers, air traffic controllers, forklift operators, gas tankers or maintenance engineers. Sometimes you have to work long shifts, and all these people can theoretically make catastrophic mistakes.

In 1990, a blowout windshield on a British airliner nearly cost the life of the plane's captain. Almost all 90 windshield bolts were smaller than the required diameter, according to the Air Accident Investigation Branch. But instead of being held accountable for the discrepancy between the bolts and countersunk holes, the maintenance engineer responsible for installing the new windshield blamed it on the oversized countersinks. In fact, this event was preceded by a sleepless night, and since the engineer was very tired, he was unable to install the windshield correctly.

It's all the fault of old planes

The release date of the aircraft becomes the subject of close attention of both the common man and the authorities after each accident. Most often, the age of the airliner is estimated at several decades, and this gives rise to a seemingly obvious conclusion: “They lifted a wreck into the sky - and it fell apart.” The logic is clear: sales managers bring junk from Arizona dumps, drive them along routes in the tail and mane until they collapse. The authorities, in turn, receive a basis for fighting old aircraft, most often of one particular brand or another. So, after the accident in Petrozavodsk on September 19 of this year, Dmitry Medvedev raised the question of removing all Tu-134 aircraft from flights, and after the Yaroslavl tragedy, he doubted the flight fate of all Yak-42s.

How widespread is the myth?

Extremely.

What really

Fedor Borisov, senior advisor at EPPA Russia:

The first reaction after any aircraft accident is usually very painful and sharp, but, as a rule, it has nothing to do with the nature of the event. Remember the old army expression: now I’ll deal with it properly and punish whoever I can? So, after a plane crash, everything is usually the other way around - they punish just anyone, and only then sort it out. And this is very bad, because it takes us away from looking for the real problem.

The first false trail that people usually follow is precisely old planes. It is false because there are no old planes. There is no such definition in nature. For example, I recently flew in Holland on an airplane designed in 1931 and produced in 1943. Yes, of course, it was repaired many times, a lot of things were changed inside, but I flew it wonderfully, and it is not old. An airplane manufactured both 50 and 70 years ago is safe in itself if it meets flight safety requirements. If all your components are certified, if you monitor its condition, then the problem of an old aircraft is not safety, but solely its economic efficiency: how profitable it is for the airline to operate it.

Vasily Savinov, partner of Strategic Aviation Solutions Int. (SASI):

I would give the following example for the common man. On our street there are a lot of three-year-old cars imported from abroad. And if you look at the absolute statistics, the number of accidents in Russia is strikingly higher than in the same Western Europe. But this is not because our cars are three years old, and they have new ones - they drove them and gave them to us so that we could crash in them. It depends more on the driving culture and the condition of the roads.

The situation is similar in aviation. If an imported aircraft is 10, 15, 20 years old, this is not an indication that it is in poor condition. A simple example. China buys exclusively new aircraft. After five years, they begin to get rid of these cars, but no one takes them. Because after five years of operation by the Chinese, a new car can become in such a state that it is unprofitable to continue operating it: you will spend more on repairs than you earn. At the same time, we are now taking a car from 1985 for our project in one of the CIS countries. It is in excellent condition, because it was operated by TNT, and for them, one minute of delay in departure is already considered late, for which they are sorted out. Accordingly, one can imagine the condition of this machine - it works better than a Kalashnikov assault rifle. That's the difference between a 5 year old car and a 25 year old car. Everything depends only on the hands that supported her.

Alexey, pilot of one of the leading Russian airlines:

From the pilot's point of view, there is absolutely no difference how old the plane is - a year, ten, twenty. In any case, the pilot himself makes the final decision whether to fly or not. Because he, just like the passengers, wants to return home to his wife and children and under no circumstances will he fly with some serious malfunction.

There is, let’s say, a list of faults officially approved by the manufacturer that can cause a crash. But if the commander does not feel confident that he will fly with this malfunction, he will not fly. For example, autopilot. Imagine: you are driving a car and your cruise control has failed. This is problem? In general, no. But from the pilot’s point of view, if the flight is long, far, and manual piloting is an additional burden on the crew, the commander may simply refuse.

Yes, such malfunctions occur more often in older aircraft, but the decision always remains with the pilot.

Conclusion

Fedor Borisov:

We must proceed from the fact that planes are divided not into Western and non-Western, good and bad, old and new, but into those ready to fly and those not ready. Everything else is a matter of airline economics alone.

Correspondence of myth to reality

Does not match.

Myth 2

It's all the fault of bad pilots

Investigations into almost every air accident find human factors among the causes. At best, this is crew fatigue from the workload, at worst, alcohol, as was the case in the plane crash in Perm in September 2008. Passengers' trust in the person at the helm Lately falls. Well-known arguments: the pilot training system is bad, new good pilots are not being trained, and the old good ones are all leaving for foreign companies, while the worst remain on regional airlines.

How widespread is the myth?

What really

Competition and desire to learn

Pavel, pilot instructor:

Only a Russian citizen can be a member of the flight crew of a Russian airline. This situation has remained since the times of the USSR, and the Russian pilots’ union lobbied for its preservation at one time. But there are more and more planes in the country, but they don’t have time to train pilots. There was a time, about ten years ago, when people simply did not go into aviation, and at the same time trained pilots went, say, into business. There are a lot of them. Now there are enough young people, but they also come out very green, nothing, they need to be taught a lot.

And many college graduates come to airlines without the desire to self-learn. At the same time, the salaries are huge, disproportionately large. Even a young pilot now gets a lot, and at the same time he does not have to fight for his place. The shortage of personnel is such that in any case, if they are kicked out of one company, they will take them to another.

On the one hand, this is good, because it is pointless to put pressure on a pilot so that he takes off with some kind of malfunction, because you won’t scare him by firing him - how can you fire a person if you have a list of “required” hanging, and there are pilots, pilots, pilots. And you will fire the person you are running around looking for?

On the other hand, this state of affairs relaxes pilots. If Russian airlines were allowed to recruit foreign pilots, as is done in many countries around the world, this would immediately eliminate many problems, including safety ones. In addition, it would be easier to master the new generation of aircraft.

The level of education

Pavel, pilot instructor:

Training must be adequate and up-to-date. Well, why does a person graduating from college need to know the power engineering of the Tu-154 B2, of which there are only a few left? Why learn these numbers by heart if he is going to a Boeing 747?

There are people over sixty in the institutes. And not because they are such good teachers, but because they have nowhere to go. But there are no young teachers.

There are a lot of “masters of the old school” among the pilots. If you look closely, you can see that some of our large airlines have Boeings that take off like Tupolev, slowly, slowly. Because there is a commander sitting there who says: “It was like this on the Tu-154, so here we will take off the same way, and that’s all.” Because he’s over fifty, why does he need to keep up with books and technology? And the young co-pilot sits on the right and will not contradict him. Our people don't know how to listen. If you politely said to someone: “I would pay attention to this problem,” they will look at you and say: “So, what kind of young upstart is this?
Sit and be silent."

If you start teaching such a “master” something new, he will send you, because, well, he is a master. People react negatively to the message that someone might know something better than them. Although this is the norm. And a true master is able to perceive new things. We have not developed this culture.

About alcohol

Vasily Savinov:

Let us remember the disaster in Perm. As stated in the IAC conclusion, the aircraft commander was “not in the mood to fly,” and the qualifications of the co-pilot did not allow him to pilot the aircraft. As a result, when the commander, being “not in the mood to fly,” tried to take control of the aircraft, he simply turned it over, put it into a dive and stuck it in the ground.

But I can say that now this is a relative rarity. Compared to Soviet times, drunkenness at the helm has clearly declined. Because in the Soviet years there was much less control over alcohol on board.

In addition, alcohol is perhaps the only thing that can get you kicked out of work today. At least in a responsible company, alcohol is the exit door. And the market is tight. Everyone knows everyone. Therefore, as soon as a person with such a diagnosis flies out of the company, it’s like a wolf’s ticket for life.

About maybe

Fedor Borisov:

Almost every disaster that occurred in Russia in last years, is a human factor, and almost every one is where it was said mentally or out loud “maybe we’ll slip through.”

But this is not a problem for aviation, but for the country as a whole, which lives by the principle “I want the law to be respected, but I am always ready to make an exception for myself.” It’s the same with some pilots: I have a rule, I know it’s dangerous, but I’ll still fly. Not because I have a bad manager standing over me who will deprive me of something, but simply because I need to return home because my wife is at home. And I’m a master, and since I’m a master, that means I can cope with this task, because I’ve already taken off ten times in such a situation, and everything is fine. And the eleventh time, a small additional factor was added that no one expected - and that’s all.

This maybe sits in a person’s head, and you won’t do anything about it until his co-pilot says to this person: “Sorry, father-commander, I’m now going to the authorities and reporting that I won’t fly with you.” , because you want to kill me and you want to kill these wonderful people behind our backs. And what you are doing is unacceptable.” And when he is not afraid to hear in response “Oh, you young informer,” when he is not the only one, but when there are two, ten, fifty of them, then it will become a system.

Although positive change began, and it happened, in my opinion, when the airlines that either fly to the West or enter into global alliances simply realized that changing this culture suited their goals. The same Aeroflot began to move in this direction not yesterday, but when it was moving towards joining SkyTeam as planned.

Conclusion

Vasily Savinov:

Seventy to eight percent of the causes of disasters are, in one way or another, the human factor. People who relied on chance. It is this, and not old aircraft and individual spare parts, that is the main and main reason that needs to be eliminated.

Moreover, the human factor is not necessarily the crew. It's a long chain. For example, the same blatant case with Perm. The commander was, to put it mildly, out of shape. But, besides this, there were violations in the training of pilots: after training, they flew their old planes for some time, and did not immediately switch to new ones. And they lost their new flying skill. That is, people were not very ready to fly on this plane. Secondly, the plane was released with defects that, in principle, were unflyable: it had different engine thrusts. This all together is the human factor, and not just “captain”
got drunk and killed everyone.”

Correspondence of myth to reality

Compliant to a large extent.

Myth 3

Blame old airports

Infrastructure problems are remembered when accidents occur at provincial airports. Experts agree: only Moscow airports are technically equipped at the current level, plus more
three or four across the country. When, for example, a plane crashed in Petrozavodsk, it turned out that the local airport did not have a modern landing system. In turn, most older Soviet and Russian aircraft are not equipped with modern ground proximity warning systems. At the same time, poor runways do not allow new aircraft to be received.

How widespread is the myth?

What really

Vasily Savinov:

Poor runways are largely a problem for airlines, which are forced to invest more in landing gear repairs and change tires more often. But this does not cause disasters. The airline simply makes a decision: we fly to this airport, but we don’t fly to this one. For example, Aeroflot does not fly to Norilsk. Although, believe me, this flight is very cost-effective. But at some point the airline decided not to fly: the landing gear would be more expensive. There is a bad strip there, it is known for being very humpbacked and broken. The airport does nothing about it, and the carriers vote with their feet. So they voted.

Lighting and navigation equipment are also not the most important thing. I can give you an example. I was one of the top managers of Karaganda airport for about a year and a half. This is a category "B" airport. There are much better equipped airports in Kazakhstan - Almaty, Astana. There is equipment and radars - everything is there. But the weather conditions there are always worse. Therefore, when the weather is bad, all superclass planes go to land in Karaganda, where the equipment is worse, but the weather conditions are better.

Conclusion

Alexey, pilot:

This issue needs to be looked at comprehensively. Of course, it’s good to have good infrastructure, it’s good to have a third lane. But this does not affect flight safety.

Correspondence of myth to reality

Does not match.

Myth 4

Levitin is to blame for everything

The question of Igor Levitin's resignation from the post of Minister of Transport is raised after every plane crash. As well as the question of the competence of all officials managing aviation - they were not built, they were overlooked, they were not controlled. Since civil aviation does not exist in a vacuum, and everything in our country is riddled with corruption, it also explains why our planes crash: because someone paid and supplied the wrong part. And how can we now determine how much of a plane crash is personal responsibility and how much is collective?

How widespread is the myth?

What really

Vasily Savinov:

The current state of aviation is not a one-man problem. If you change the chief traffic cop in Moscow, will the cars stop beating? Of course not. Maybe something will change, maybe somewhere out there, in a separate place, they will become a little better roads. But in general the situation will not change radically. Now the same Levitin in the Ministry of Transport does not have a team, there is no concept that would show what it should be Russian aviation in five years, in ten years, that is, a clear understanding of where we are going, what we need to change.

Yes, there are plans to build up the country with new runways. But this is not a concept. This is a story about how regional budgets receive a lot of money and then use it. But this has nothing to do with security.

Fedor Borisov:

Security consists of three components. The first is regulatory documents that regulate safety. And in principle, in Russia the regulatory documents are normal. Something can probably be corrected, but they do not contain anything that would program the murder of its own citizens.

The second is effective control. That is, this is the same official who will come and check the execution of this document. And here we have some difficulty with this. Because there is a basic law: people commit violations when they are allowed to commit violations. For example, when it was said that small companies should leave the market because they are unsafe, in fact the state signed off on its failure as a market regulator. Because it raises its hands and says: “Guys, we can’t control it, because apparently there is corruption there, and that’s why they are breaking the law.” But it's a little funny. Because guys, you regulate this market yourself. And now you say, "We'll shut them down because we can't handle regulation." Or, translated into Russian: “We take bribes, and therefore we will close them, because, sorry, we cannot not take bribes.”

And third is the airline management culture. We are making progress with this, but the Federal Air Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport have nothing to do with this at all. Progress is achieved at the expense of large companies, and they were led to this by global alliances, which they need to join in order to win in world markets.

Vasily Savinov:

In addition to flight safety, aviation authorities have another important task - to help their country's airlines develop the market and help people develop their business. But they can't do it. Because in their understanding, business is kickbacks. Let’s say you allowed airline “A” to fly to Antalya, but airline “B” did not, and grateful airline “A” thanked you very much. This is what they can do remarkably well. But what can be done to make Russian airlines feel good, so that they can develop, so that they can compete on equal terms with foreign carriers and expand their market share - this is something few of the aviation authorities know. But this should be part of national policy.

Conclusion

Fedor Borisov:

Planes are not crashing because of Levitin. It is just one element of the overall chain. What Levitin is guilty of as a minister is that when you fly on airplanes, you pay twice as much. If you fly around Europe, you are probably wondering: why does a ticket from Munich to Rome cost half as much as a ticket from Moscow to Krasnodar? The first thought that comes to your mind is that airlines are bastards. But a study of all the costs of airlines, the structure of the market, how it is formed, will convince you that, of course, airlines also take an active part in this system, but aviation authorities make a significant contribution. They are the ones who provide small monopolies on various aviation routes, where people scoop up all transportation for themselves and dictate prices.

WITHcorrespondence between myth and reality

Partially compliant.

Myth 5

It's all the fault of the "little bastards"

Small airlines bear the brunt of almost every accident. After Petrozavodsk and Yaroslavl, on behalf of the President, the Federal Air Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport are preparing documents that, starting next year, will force out of the market those air carriers that do not have ten, and in another year - twenty aircraft.

How widespread is the myth?

What really

About purchasing new aircraft

Vasily Savinov:

The decision to purchase new aircraft should not be imposed from above, it should be the decision of the airline itself. You can’t force me to buy a McLaren - my Saab is enough for me, it suits my budget, my wishes and driving style. And if they tell me: “By presidential decree, you must sell everything and buy a McLaren for a million,” I say: “Guys, I’m sorry, I can’t,
I physically can’t.”

The biggest problem of most of our regional airlines (except UTair) is that they are companies of two, three or four small aircraft. It’s hard for them to even maintain these planes in proper condition. Therefore, when they are told: tomorrow you must buy a new Boeing, which costs 120 million (or even 10 million), where will they get it? No bank will give them a loan: they have nothing to put as collateral.

And even if they find the money for the plane, they need to spend half a million dollars to retrain one crew.

About regional transportation

Vasily Savinov:

It’s easy to kill small airlines, in five minutes - just revoke the certificate or not renew the certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft. Yes, from the point of view of the aviation authorities, a woman with a cart is easier for a mare. But then how will all the locals fly around the taiga?

Fedor Borisov:

There are places where there is no railway connection at all. Or, like on Lake Baikal, there are points to which a plane can fly in two hours, but the train ride takes six days. And at the same time, an airline flies there that has five An-24s in its fleet, and their total cost is 2–3 million dollars, no more. Accordingly, in order to buy one foreign car, they need to sell everything they own and something else.

Therefore, if we ban the An-24 and Yak-42, this will have the most unpleasant consequences. In reality, this will be the collapse of the regional game. Because there is no one to replace them. Large companies, firstly, will not come to these routes, because they do not have enough planes and pilots even for profitable flights - why would they divert resources to almost planned unprofitable ones? The same Aeroflot will do this only in one case - if they call it from the place where other planes have been banned and say: they need to plug the hole.

But what does it mean to “plug a hole”? Regional transportation will likely have to be subsidized. This means that a huge amount of money must be obtained from somewhere. And we seem to be facing a new crisis, we are talking about the need to cut the budget in all areas. But they will still get the money, because people in villages or towns will crawl out into the square with posters and say: we have been cut off from the mainland.

Then they will call Savelyev (head of Aeroflot - RR) and ask: “Can you do it?” And here is the second stage. They will find money for him to subsidize, and he will say: “But I don’t have planes that can fly there. I have a Superjet, but it won’t land there, because only the An-24 turboprop can land there.” Where can we get the An-24? And nowhere - everything is mothballed, and the airlines are disbanded.

In addition to the subsidy option, there is the option of launching a monopolist and giving him the opportunity to set prices himself. I’ll explain what will happen with an example. Murmansk and Apatity are two neighboring airports. Four airlines fly to Murmansk - I don’t know how it is now, but last year was the most cheap ticket one way cost 3 thousand rubles. Moscow - Apatity - one carrier, Nordavia. And the ticket there is 20 thousand one way. Moreover, Apatity is 100 kilometers closer to Moscow.

So if the smaller airlines go into liquidation, we will have three things. Some routes will definitely be closed. Others will be flown less frequently - not every day, but once or twice a week. Well, the third thing is, of course, the increase in tariffs. Because small regional airlines make a huge contribution to the price situation, these “live little ones” fly quite well and create competition.

Conclusion

Fedor Borisov:

Yes, of course, we are talking about the fact that large airlines have better quality of service, security control is perhaps more reliable. But the problem with the quality of service cannot be cured by amputation, just like an abscess on the leg.

So we want to integrate into the world economy, and in Moscow every second person speaks English, because the city lives by business, here you need to know English. And in the villages no one speaks English, because there is a problem with teachers. So let's cut out all of them there and remove this problem - they will have a good reason not to speak English. The second solution is to send teachers there. My point is that we need to educate these small regional airlines. Yes, it is difficult, just as it is difficult to take a village boy and make him a university graduate. This is more difficult than taking a Muscovite who studied in a special school, but it still needs to be done.

Correspondence of myth to reality

Does not match.

Why does Russia, which until recently was the world leader in aircraft manufacturing, buy second-hand aircraft all over the world? Who should be held responsible for the deaths of people transported on imported rubbish? Why is KAI graduate, certified aviation engineer Andrei Petrov forced to work as a realtor and how can this be related to the plane crash in Kazan? Why, if we are so poor, did the Universiade in Kazan become the most expensive in the world?

November 18 was declared a day of mourning in Tatarstan by presidential decree. On Sunday evening while landing at international airport Kazan A Boeing 737-500 plane of Tatarstan Airlines, operating flight 363 Moscow-Domodedovo - Kazan, exploded. 50 people were killed, including the head of the FSB department for Tatarstan, Alexander Antonov, son of the President of Tatarstan, Irek Minnikhanov. Both flight recorders have already been found, everyone is waiting for the causes of this plane crash to be made public. Malfunction of worn-out used equipment? Weather? Human factor? A fatal confluence of circumstances?

Who knows... A fatal confluence of circumstances happened earlier, much earlier, namely, when Judas Gorbachev betrayed and sold the USSR, including the entire population living in it. My relative Andrei Petrov was then studying at the Kazan Aviation Institute at the faculty aircraft. Since childhood, he dreamed of building airplanes. At first, he, just like all the other naive good citizens Soviet Union, even rejoiced that now he would finally live “like people.” That is, in accordance with the picture that was so diligently sold to the people for several years in a row under the sweet sauce of liberalism, democracy and an abundance of foreign rags and Snickers...

In general, when adults, many of whom had higher education received at the expense of the state (note, excellent by international quality standards), realized that they, like children, had been fooled, it was already too late. As is customary in such cases of murder for organs, the country was dismembered, thoroughly gutted, then... What happened then - we all know very well, as they say, we have the opportunity to experience the whole gamut of sensations from what was happening.

But all patience, of course, has its limits. It’s one thing to be a citizen of a great state, another thing is to realize that your Motherland is no longer as powerful as it was before, but still wow, the third thing is to understand that you no longer even live in a second world country. Even impoverished Africa and gypsy Romania refused this plane, and we select everything that even third world countries do not need. Stubborn facts state that Russia has fallen below African countries.

For the first 5 years (1990-1995), as expected, the Boeing that crashed in Kazan was flown by Europeans, after which it went into the hands of third world countries. First, the aircraft was sold to Uganda, where it was flown for another 5 years. In 2000, Uganda sold the plane to Brazil, where it was already experiencing breakdowns.

Moreover, already during the Brazilian operation, a tragedy almost occurred with this aircraft. On December 17, 2001, while landing at the airport in the Brazilian city of Belo Horizonte, a plane with 102 passengers and six crew members on board touched the ground before the start of the runway. After this, the Boeing jumped and hit the runway with force, as a result of which its left landing gear broke. The plane stopped after 1800 meters, moving along the runway relying on the left engine. Then as a result rescue operation managed to evacuate all passengers and crew members. Thus, there were no casualties in the serious accident, but the aircraft received significant damage and required significant repairs to return it to service.

After this, Brazil sold the aircraft to Romania, where the aircraft operated economy class flights for another 3 years. In the 18th year of operation, the aircraft was sold to Bulgaria, and, apparently, was already in such a condition that Bulgaria sold it six months later... that's right, to Russia. Where in 2012 it already made an emergency landing, but continued to be used. And it crashed in the 23rd (!) year of use, taking with it the lives of fifty Russians.

the deceased Boeing, on which I also had the opportunity to fly to Moscow several times

Two years ago, there were three emergency situations on Boeing aircraft and an emergency on an Airbus A-320 in Novosibirsk due to a failure of the navigation system. All of Russia waited with bated breath for President Medvedev's menacing decree banning the operation of aircraft of these brands. However, no decree was issued. Medvedev’s bans when he was president affected only Russian-made aircraft and river vessels, foreign aircraft in this regard they turned out to be untouchable. He turned out to be a worthy successor of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin anti-people traditions.

Consider only one Medvedev statement made at a meeting of the operational headquarters to eliminate the consequences of the Yak-42 plane crash (RA-42434, release date October 1, 1993) near Yaroslavl in 2011 before the completion of the official investigation: “Of course, you need to think about your own , but if they are not able to “promote themselves,” they need to buy equipment abroad.” What does it mean to “unwind”? And what kind of “promotion” can we talk about here when there is total destruction? By the way, as a result of the investigation, it turned out that the cause of the plane crash was a crew error. Moreover, while destroying our aircraft industry, Medvedev cynically stated: “that the value of human life should be higher than special considerations, including support for domestic manufacturers.”

Meanwhile, Medvedev could not help but know (this is where the cynicism lies) that it is Russian aircraft that provide the greatest passenger safety in the world and, by refusing to support the domestic manufacturer, he is deliberately endangering people’s lives.

Our country has created the safest aircraft in the world, such as the Il-96 and Tu-204/214, which have not claimed a single human life. Moreover, the Tu-204/214 is the only aircraft of this class that can be landed without engines at all. Thus, the RA-64011 board is known for the fact that on January 14, 2002 it made a successful landing at the Omsk airport after turning off the engines in flight due to complete exhaustion of fuel. This famous incident occurred during the flight Frankfurt - Novosibirsk. During the approach to Novosibirsk airport according to the procedure, the crew received information about going to a reserve due to weather conditions. They chose Barnaul. However, at Barnaul airport the weather conditions also did not meet the minimum, and it was decided to land in Omsk. As a result, at a distance of 17 km from the airfield, the fuel ran out. The crew was able to perform a successful landing. And even subsequently, when on March 22, 2010, the same aircraft, performing a technical flight (without passengers on board) from Hurghada to Moscow, when approaching runway 14R of Domodedovo Airport in difficult weather conditions (heavy fog, limited visibility) collided with the ground at approximately 1 km from the end of the strip and collapsed in a collision with trees; there was no fire at the scene. The main thing is that none of the crew members (although they received injuries of varying severity) none (!) died. The cause of this plane crash was again the error of the crew, who decided to land instead of leaving for an alternate airfield, which does not indicate the technical imperfection of our aircraft, but the poor training of the pilots.

But 174 Boeing 737 planes crashed, killing almost 4 thousand people. The largest disaster in Russia with a Boeing 737-500 aircraft occurred in 2008 in Perm. 88 people died then. Now also Kazan... Yes, I must add that Boeing 737-900 are already flying somewhere, but these modern aircraft for some reason they do not belong to Russian airlines...

Medvedev did everything to finish off the Russian aviation industry

For some reason, Medvedev’s presidential zeal that “the value of human life is higher than all other considerations, including support for the national manufacturer...” began to manifest itself in the following: do not support the national manufacturer, but buy Boeings for “other considerations”, regardless of their technical imperfection. Back in the mid-90s, the Boeing 737 model was officially recognized as the most dangerous in the world. In addition, this model is 4 years older than our TU-154. And all the myths about the old age of our aircraft remain myths. According to their own design features our aircraft still remain the most reliable in the world and a ban on their production is just lobbying for the interests of foreign companies. Isn’t that why, having declared the development of the domestic aviation industry a national priority, the Russian Government increased the production of civil aircraft to 7 units per year, and the purchase of Boeings to 50 units? Abroad, they do not hide the fact that they have found a large sales market in Russia. Airbus management reported that in the next 20 years Russian airlines will acquire 1006 passenger aircraft worth about $95 billion, half of which will be Boeing. When priorities at the government level are given to foreign technology, then, naturally, the domestic aviation industry will not rise. There is no money allocated for science and development. Government support is being denied. Is this called a priority national project?

President Medvedev hammered the final nail into the coffin of the Russian aviation industry by speaking out not only against the operation of domestic aircraft, but also against their production. And this is called a priority national project for the development of the aviation industry! Which one? American?

These and many other questions can be answered if you understand the orientation of the activities of Russia's top leadership. Stalin wanted the USSR to have the best aviation in the world, and it did.

V.V. During his previous presidency, Putin actively fought for the restoration of the domestic aviation industry (agreements with Russian airlines on the purchase of 145 Tu-204/214 and Tu-334 aircraft, plus the supply of 130 aircraft to Iran) and, in particular, engine building (production of PS-90 and NK-93 engines), which, by the way, he continues to do now.

Medvedev terminated all contracts concluded by Putin and set a personal example in his disdain for Russian aircraft - instead of the presidential Il-96, he decided to fly the French Dassault Falcon X7 business class aircraft. In order to fly this plane, Medvedev sacrificed Russia’s international status, because the choice of the plane by the first person of the state means a concrete sign of whose aviation industry he supports. Medvedev showed everyone that he will support non-Russian industry. And he proved this in action by concluding a contract with the United States for the supply of Boeings, which is really killing the Russian aircraft industry. In continuation of his chosen line, the ex-president agreed with the United States to purchase 50 narrow-body Boeing aircraft and signed an option for another 15 wide-body Boeings estimated cost at 4.2 billion dollars. In his response, Obama thanked Russian President for the fact that the contract “will provide America with 44 thousand jobs.” For Russia, this is a direct loss of benefits in the form of 400 regional aircraft of its own production: deprivation of the workload of enterprises, jobs, and, in general, an end to the restoration of the domestic aviation industry.

In his response, Obama thanked the Russian president for contracts for the purchase of American aircraft, for which the latter had to break his constitutional oath, betraying the interests of the people of Russia

So, Medvedev did everything to ensure that there was no Russian civil aviation at all. But the problem is somewhat deeper than it might seem at first glance. The fact is that aircraft manufacturing is only a derivative of engine building. My relative Andrei Petrov, who since childhood dreamed of building airplanes, told me about this. You can design and create beautiful aircraft, but if there are no engines for them, then aircraft without engines will be nothing more than metal boxes. As long as Russia has its own engine industry, Russia can have its own aircraft. Best in the world. Because our aircraft engines are the best, and some of them, such as the NK-93, have no analogues at all in the world. Experts say that in ten years everyone will be flying on engines of this type: the Germans, the Americans, and the French.

The NK-93 engine, invented by Russian designer Nikolai Kuznetsov, is the aircraft engine of the future

NK-93 is the first Russian fifth-generation engine with outstanding performance characteristics, outperforming all engines of comparable power in the world, including promising ones. NK-93 is intended for a whole line of existing and future trunk lines passenger airliners medium and long range - Tu-204, Tu-214, Il-96-400, military transport aircraft - Il-76, Tu-330.

Meanwhile, this engine, which has not been launched into the sky for more than 15 years, neither in Samara nor in Moscow, although Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is among its ardent supporters. Apparently, the current anti-crisis managers from Rosoboronprom have put an end to the domestic aircraft engine industry: the company that developed the NK-93, OJSC Samara Scientific and Technical Complex named after Nikolai Kuznetsov, is essentially already bankrupt. But what about the engine, without which independent Russia is doomed to aviation slavery to the American and English Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce? Without which you can give up on the domestic aircraft industry: no engine, no plane.

There is also the issue of liability. At the instigation of Yeltsin’s son-in-law Okulov, the aviation business in Russia was handed over to private owners. Used planes crash, people die. Who is responsible in case of equipment malfunction? For some reason, for us, everything somehow comes down exclusively to the material side of the matter. For example, representatives of the manufacturer Boeing have already rushed to Kazan to find out the causes of the disaster. Can we really count on an objective assessment of what happened from the position of such an interested party? Of course, the manufacturer will try to conduct such an “investigation”, as a result of which the weather, human factor, improper maintenance and operation of the aircraft will be to blame (with possibly fair claims regarding the replacement of spare parts with, again, cheaper used or counterfeit ones). Airline owners, on the contrary, are more profitable when the manufacturer is to blame. Air carriers, of course. In addition, no matter how seditious this idea may sound, the crash of planes is beneficial for air carriers from an economic point of view - after all, the planes are insured, and insurance payments are many times higher than the cost of the planes...

One of my friends received a message from her friend - he turned out to be a passenger on the previous flight of this ill-fated plane: “And I flew on this particular plane. 4 hours ago. To Moscow... So happy birthday to me. And even if these bitches don’t even open their mouths about the weather or the pilot’s mistake: the plane was already faulty upon landing in Moscow, we almost crashed upon landing...” To confirm his words, Grigory attaches a photo of the boarding pass...

Screenshot of a phone screen with a message from a passenger of the crashed plane, Grigory Busarev, who was on the previous flight 4 hours before the tragedy

A separate thread in the general outline of the issues under study is the current process of training and preparing flight crews. What education - so are the pilots. As, in general, are doctors and builders. What did you think? So cautious people do not advise either getting sick or living in new buildings. And maybe it’s better not to show up at new large stadiums, or at other grandiose venues, you never know...

But last summer The World Student Universiade took place in Kazan... Yes, sport is good, it is necessary, you cannot argue with it. We need to invest in sports facilities, we need to develop the city. This is in general. What if you take a closer look? Well, why should we, one might ask, in cold Kazan, a city with the climate of central Russia, in which there are no summers a year? outdoor stadium for 45,000 seats, and for 15.5 billion rubles? But we won’t be able to fill this stadium in our life after the Universiade (unless it’s for the World Cup). In addition, they say that something was built incorrectly there, and our brand new, rather large and expensive stadium will be remodeled! Again, using budget funds, of course. What can I say, the stadium is actually a pittance general budget Universiade. In total, 7.5 billion dollars (230 billion rubles) were spent on it, which is four times (!) more than the previous Universiade in China. Just give free rein to the managers of our people's money - they are always eager to show off. And it’s not so easy to calculate later how much money was actually burned in all these fireworks...

Why do we need a stadium in cold Kazan? open air for 45 thousand spectators?

We dance and sing, arrange a feast for the whole world - there are funds for this. Holidays and mass celebrations are held everywhere, with or without reason. There are endless concerts and comedy shows on TV - you'll laugh out loud. What are we happy about? Who and, most importantly, why gave us such a joyful life? To make it more fun to slide into the abyss? Before slaughtering a pig, a smart owner also pleases it, scratching its belly to lull the pig’s vigilance. And then, when she starts grunting with pleasure - a knife in the heart. Here we have - continuous entertainment. For example, in Samara on the site of a former aircraft factory shopping mall building...

In the light of all these bright fireworks for Tatarstan, how inappropriate it is to buy fairly used American coffins with armrests tied with tape. In the photographs of the crashed plane published today by the Kazan Internet portal “BUSINESS Online”, taken by photographer Andrei Steklov three years before the tragedy, all this shame is in full view. As Steklov said, then he received an order to photograph for a magazine that was distributed to domestic flights. Even then, the aircraft was not “new”: “I photographed the Boeing both from the outside and from the inside. Look at the photo, everything is not quite new: the armrests are tied with tape, stains on the carpet. Then the customer wanted to show the full scale of the action - ownership of Boeing... The photographs, by the way, were never included in the order,” Steklov said.

Armrests tied with tape are too much!

It’s especially offensive that this happens when we have Kazan KAPO named after. Gorbunov, an aircraft manufacturing enterprise that was the flagship of Soviet aviation. Now the enterprise produces from 1 to 3 Tu-214 aircraft per year, and when my relative Petrov, a graduate of KAI, came to this plant in 1992, 30 aircraft were produced there per year.

Then devastation began at the plant (as well as at other plants throughout the country), the certified aircraft engineer became of no use to anyone... Now he is forced to work as a realtor. He doesn’t like the job, so Andrey happily takes on any job, and during the Kazan Universiade he worked as a driver transporting athletes. From him I learned that for this purpose, as many as 1,000 brand new (unlike the vintage airplanes we purchase) cars, again not of the domestic Hyundai brand, were purchased. But at the Universiade in China, its participants calmly moved around the city on public transport, tea is not disabled people, but athletes. Where did this entire fleet of vehicles go after the Universiade? No one notified Petrov about this when he handed over his board after the end of the competition in order to return to the boring everyday life of a realtor. Now, in order to pay off the mortgage for another half of his life, he will again look and show other people’s apartments, bargain, persuade...

What can he do? He doesn’t want to go overseas, as many of his friends from the aviation institute did. Because he loves his homeland, unlike, unfortunately, high-ranking corrupt officials who destroyed his dream of building airplanes. And now this cherished dream of his has turned into a pile of fragments. Similar to the wreckage of an imported plane that crashed near his native Kazan...