Image copyright AFP Image caption Experts point out that the plane was flown by a very experienced crew.

The Tu-154 aircraft of the Russian Ministry of Defense crashed on Sunday morning over the Black Sea. The crash occurred minutes after taking off from Sochi airport, where the aircraft was stopping for refueling before continuing on to Russia's Khmeimim airbase in Syria.

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

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

Valery Shelkovnikov, Member of the Board of the World Aviation Safety Foundation:

“Everything, on the one hand, is simple. Air accident investigators around the world in their work are based on three main things: man, machine and environment.

As for the man: yesterday Sergey Dmitrievich Baynetov, deputy chief of the aviation safety service for the aviation of the armed forces, said that the crew commander was a very experienced person. By military standards, three thousand flight hours is a trained pilot.

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

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

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

Icing is a very dangerous thing. They might not have been detected, and ice could form on the wing, on the tail unit, and the ice immediately disrupts aerodynamics. Loses control instantly.

If you heard a radio exchange, then the launch controller asks: "Where do you expect takeoff from?"

The crew responds: "From the beginning (bands), heavy." That is, it has only half a cabin of passengers; what he has in the luggage compartments - he alone knows. Probably, they refueled "to the eyeballs" with fuel, and in such situations, as you know, even a little bit of ice on the wing is the end.

The pilot, however, did not say anything on the air. The boxes will be found, then we can determine something from the internal conversations.

Terrorist attack - this option is also being considered there. But in Sochi there is an airport that was being prepared for the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games went off without a hitch in terms of aviation safety. I was there quite recently - passengers are carefully checked there. Maybe less carefully than at the Israeli airport, but…

You can consider the version that someone shot down the plane from MANPADS. It may be. When we flew to Afghanistan on Tu-154 and Il-76 planes, so-called "heat traps" were installed on the planes to avoid the impact of Dushman MANPADS.

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

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

But these are all versions. There are many versions.

Urpo Koskela, former chief pilot of FinnAir:

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

While the aircraft was on the apron, a microclimate formed over the cold upper surface of the wing. Moisture above the cold upper surface of the wing settled on it, creating a layer of transparent frost, which is very difficult to see if you do not know about it in advance (you can only detect such ice by touch). This layer of transparent ice significantly impairs the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing during takeoff. The aircraft can suddenly lose speed and roll over, especially when cornering.

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

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

My words were confirmed after the SAS DC-9 aircraft made emergency landing behind runway airfield due to the failure of both engines. It turned out that during the increase in the angle of attack to create lift, when the wing bends, this frost got into the engines, which immediately stalled.

If this happened in Sochi, it will be impossible to detect it - the ice has already melted. But I think this version is worth seriously considering, isn't it?"

Viktor Sazhenin, Honored Pilot of Russia:

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

If the plane had accumulated ice even during the landing approach in Sochi, then the crew would already have felt the deterioration in the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft and would have required the treatment of the aircraft on the ground with anti-icing liquid.

The temperature of the refueling fuel must have been positive, not negative, as the author writes. You and I know the climatic conditions in Sochi, and the outside temperature was +5 degrees there. The ice on the wing (if it was there) would definitely have melted during the refueling and parking of the aircraft on the platform.

Image copyright AFP Image caption By this time, the rescuers managed to find the bodies of only 10 people.

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

Vadim Lukashevich, independent aviation expert:

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

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

And these tasks are entrusted only to very high-class pilots. In the same place, when they fly to Baikonur, in case of some unforeseen situations, the main crew flies with one aircraft, and the backup crew flies with another. Especially for the fact that if the main crew, God forbid, dies in a plane crash, then a backup crew will fly.

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

(About the icing version)

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

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

Although the devil only knows... But this version does not seem so probable to me. Theoretically, this is possible. But theoretically, it could be like this: he made a U-turn, the cargo in the luggage compartment fell off for some reason, lay on one side, and a list appeared. But this, you know, is a far-fetched version.

(About the silence of the pilots before the crash)

In an emergency, pilots usually need some kind of ground assistance. A vivid example is the "Miracle on the Hudson", when the pilots immediately requested a landing, and so on. Of course, when some very fast-moving situation arises that develops for five, ten, twenty seconds, the pilot still has the opportunity to press the emergency button.

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

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

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

Old but reliable

Board RA-85572 could hardly be called new. It was built at the Kuibyshev Aviation Plant in 1983. By December 2016, the 33-year-old Tu-154 managed to fly 6689 hours. However, for aircraft of this type, the age limit is 40 years, and the resource is 60,000 flight hours. Over the entire period of operation, it has never seriously broken down, and the last scheduled repair took place in 2014. A few days before the crash, some difficulties arose with the aircraft - airfield services discovered a fuel leak from the wing tank. But the problems were quickly eliminated, the work was accepted by military acceptance. Before departure on December 25, 2016, the aircraft passed all the necessary checks, it was recognized as fully operational and ready for a long flight.

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

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

Human factor

The first versions of the causes of the crash the day after the crash were voiced by the FSB of Russia: foreign objects getting into the engine, low-quality fuel, piloting error or a technical malfunction of the aircraft. Representatives of the investigation stressed that the plane did not carry military or dual-use cargo. No signs of sabotage or terrorist attack were found either. In Sochi, only two border guards and a customs officer boarded the plane.

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

The Ministry of Defense called possible cause Tu-154 crash over the Black SeaAccording to the accident investigation commission, the plane could have crashed due to erroneous actions of the crew commander as a result of "violation of spatial orientation."

Later, experts studied the issue of the ship's workload. In April, the media reported that the crash could have occurred due to an overload of the liner. Then the journalists claimed that instead of the normative 98 tons, the weight of the aircraft during takeoff allegedly amounted to more than 110 tons. As a result, the Ministry of Defense did not find "violations of the current requirements regarding the seating of passengers in the Tu-154 cabin, as well as loading and centering the transported cargo."

"According to the results of the investigation, it was established that the cause of the accident could be a violation of spatial orientation - the situational awareness of the aircraft commander, which led to his erroneous actions," representatives of the military department voiced their version at the end of May.

Set point early

Earlier, journalists from the Kommersant newspaper came to similar conclusions by publishing their own investigation, supported by comments from informed sources. It was alleged, in particular, that the pilot Roman Volkov began to experience difficulties in determining his location while still on the ground - he could not figure out which of the two lanes he would take off from. According to the publication, the aircraft commander stopped navigating in space immediately after takeoff. Instead of relying on instrument readings, as required by all flight instructions, pilot Volkov began to rely on his own physiological sensations. The vestibular apparatus "informed" him that the car was climbing too fast, so the major began to lower the nose of the plane. This, as Kommersant writes, led to the crash.

However, the Investigative Committee, which has already extended the investigation several times, should put an end to the clarification of the causes of the disaster. Last Wednesday, a source familiar with the situation told RIA Novosti that specialists would need a few more months. According to him, the repeated suspensions are due to the need for additional investigative actions and the collection of exhaustive evidence in the criminal case.

“It is quite possible that this is not the last extension of the investigation due to the fact that a complex examination is currently being carried out, which is not possible to complete in a short time,” the source emphasized.

Tu-154 crash over the Black Sea- aviation accident that occurred on October 4, 2001. The Tu-154M airliner of Siberia Airlines performed a scheduled flight SBI1812 on the route Tel Aviv - Novosibirsk, but after 1 hour and 45 minutes after takeoff, it crashed into the Black Sea. All 78 people on board (66 passengers and 12 crew members) were killed.

In 2003, Ukraine signed intergovernmental agreements with Russia and Israel on compensation to relatives of those killed in the plane crash. Under these agreements, Ukraine paid US$200,000 for each of those killed - $7,800,000 to Russia and $7,500,000 to Israel.

Siberia Airlines in 2004 filed a lawsuit with the Economic Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Defense and the Treasury of Ukraine in the amount of more than 15,000,000 dollars. In 2011, the court rejected this claim based on the opinion of Ukrainian experts from , who admitted that the plane was hit by a lot of hard objects about 10 mm in size, but did not establish their belonging to a specific explosive device. According to an analysis of data from the Gelendzhik radar complex dated October 4, 2001, conducted by KNIISE, the Ukrainian 5V28 ZRK S-200V missile, possibly corresponding to an unknown object 50 km from the disaster, could not reach the aircraft in 30 seconds.

Airplane

Crew

The aircraft was flown by an experienced crew, its composition was as follows:

Five flight attendants worked in the cabin of the aircraft:

• Vladimir Dmitrievich Khomyakov, 51 years old - senior flight attendant. Born July 25, 1950 in Novosibirsk. On flight work since September 1972.
• Natalya Georgievna Kostenko, 45 years old. She was born on April 3, 1956 in Novosibirsk. On flight work since July 1977.
• Alexander Gennadievich Savich, 35 years old. Born November 3, 1966 in Novosibirsk in the family of a pilot civil aviation. On flight work since June 1992.
• Elena Vladimirovna Gusarova, 32 years old. She was born on June 24, 1969 in Novosibirsk. On flight work since January 1994.
• Igor Viktorovich Voronkov, 42 years old. Born April 2, 1959 in Novosibirsk. In flight work since 1991.

In addition, the crew included 37-year-old engineer Sergei Ivanovich Lebedinsky and 37-year-old technician Konstantin Petrovich Shcherbakov.

Chronology of events

Departure from Tel Aviv, disaster

October 3, 2001 Tu-154M board RA-85693 made flight SBI1811 on the route Novosibirsk-Sochi-Tel Aviv and back to Novosibirsk. On the way to Israel, landing in Sochi was carried out for the purpose of refueling. At the Sochi airport, the aircraft's tanks were filled with fuel in order to perform the return flight as well.

Flight SBI1812 departed from International Airport named after David Ben-Gurion at 08:00 UTC (10:00 Israel time). At 09:39 UTC, the aircraft entered the area of ​​responsibility No. 7 of the North Caucasus Center for Automated Control air traffic(SCC ATC) "Strela", and the crew informed the controller about the passage of the obligatory ODIRA reporting point. The flight was carried out at an altitude of 11,100 meters within the B-145 international airway, which was not subject to any restrictions, including temporary ones, in effect for the period of the exercise armed forces air defense of Ukraine.

At 09:45 UTC (13:45 MSK), the tape recorder of the Strela ATC SCC recorded a sound signal corresponding to the crew's access to external communication, accompanied by a human scream. Later, within 45 seconds, several more signals were recorded from pressing the onboard VHF radio button by the crew members, followed by noises and screams of the crew members (including a fragment of the phrase: ... where did you get (o) ...), testifying to the sudden occurrence of an emergency on board the aircraft. Almost simultaneously, the aircraft's tag disappeared from the radar screens. The liner at that time was at an altitude of 11,000 meters, about 200 kilometers southwest of Sochi. At the same time, the crew of an Armavia An-24 aircraft in the same area reported a flash over it.

The coordinates of the approximate crash site have been determined 42°11′ N. sh. 37°37′ E d. HGIOL, which is about 340 kilometers from the launch site (Cape Opuk, Crimea).

Finding the wreckage

A special commission was set up to investigate the causes of the disaster. An-26 of the Federal Border Service of Russia urgently took off from Gelendzhik to the crash site of the liner. The patrol border ship “Vulture” and the cargo ship “Captain Vakula” also went there. An An-12 aircraft of the Ministry of Defense and a Mi-8 helicopter of the Sochi Search and Rescue Service with rescuers on board also flew to the crash site, two rescue tugboats - Mercury from Tuapse and Kapitan Beklemishev from Novorossiysk, as well as a ship of the Ministry of Emergency situations "Rescuer Prokopchik". At the Agoy airfield near Tuapse, another MI-8 helicopter with rescuers and water rescue equipment was ready for immediate departure. He waited for the crash landing site to be discovered in order to save fuel on the search and focus solely on rescue. This helicopter never took off, and no survivors were found.

The An-12 aircraft found oil stains at the alleged crash site. Helicopters found several wreckage of the plane and the body dead passengers floating on the surface of the sea. In total, 14 of the 78 bodies of the dead were found. No one survived .

The search was carried out within a radius of 30 kilometers from the place indicated by the crew of the Armavia aircraft. In this area of ​​the Black Sea, the depth is over 2000 meters and the bottom is highly silted. The weather was normal. The sea was trawled, the bottom was explored with an echo sounder, floating remains were collected from the surface. In addition to the remains of the bodies, 404 fragments of the liner, personal belongings and clothes of passengers were found. It was not possible to find out the location of the liner and flight recorders. Among the collected debris was about a quarter of everything floor covering the cabin of the aircraft, in which 183 holes were found from being hit by metal balls. On the extracted fragments, 460 holes were counted. Not a single rocket fragment and not a single flight recorder was found.

Technical investigation

October 5. There was information about holes found in the fuselage of the Tu-154, resembling bullet holes, but this information was called premature. Head of the West Siberian Regional Office air transport Vladimir Tasun stated that, “according to unverified information, the dispatcher on the radar saw a luminous dot rapidly approaching the aircraft. Here is the only thing obtained from unofficial sources through the channels telephone connection employees of the company "Siberia" from Rostov. Rescuers from Israel joined the Russian rescuers, the analysis of the conversations of the Tu-154 crew and the analysis of the video tape recording the readings of the radars were started. The Prime Minister of Ukraine Anatoliy Kinakh made a statement that the version about the missile hitting the Tu-154 aircraft of Siberia Airlines "has the right to exist."

October 6. Secretary of the Security Council of Russia V. Rushailo said that objects not related to the aircraft structure were found at the crash site, and that "the aircraft was destroyed as a result of an explosive defeat." At the same time, the head of the Main Directorate of the North Caucasian Regional Center of the Russian Emergencies Ministry, Ivan Teterin, expressed the opinion that the likelihood of finding any remains of the Tu-154 aircraft at the bottom of the Black Sea is minimal due to the great depth and zero visibility.

October 7th. According to the commission, at 13:45:12 a ground-based tape recorder recorded the cry of a Tu-154M pilot.

October 9. According to the commission, an analysis of the holes in the fuselage showed that the aircraft could have been hit by a missile from the S-200 Surface-to-Air air defense system, since the size and shape of the holes are consistent with the shrapnel of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the missile of this particular complex. After the assumption that the plane could have been shot down by a missile during exercises on the Crimean Peninsula, the media ceases to call these exercises joint and marks them as exclusively Ukrainian exercises. Finding out the details of the disaster is complicated by the inability to determine the exact location of the plane crash - the search for aircraft wreckage was carried out on an area with a radius of more than 12 sea miles.

October 10. The Prosecutor General's Office of Russia reported preliminary data from a forensic medical examination of the dead - the cause of death of all 14 passengers whose bodies were found during search and rescue operations was barotrauma. According to Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia Sergei Fridinsky, carbon monoxide was found in the blood of the dead, which indicates a fire on board the vessel.

October 11. Vladimir Rushailo published the conclusion of the technical commission investigating the causes of the crash of flight 1812: “multiple damages in the form of similar holes indicate the defeat Russian aircraft from outside". At the same time, Rushailo stressed that "the remains of the plane that crashed into the sea were not found due to the complex structure of the bottom, the aggressive hydrogen sulfide environment and a large layer of silt - up to 6 meters."

October 12. The press secretary of the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Konstantin Khivrenko, commenting on the preliminary results of the investigation into the incident, admitted that the Ukrainian missile could have caused the death of the Tu-154.

October 13. Vladimir Rushailo said that, according to the analysis of the wreckage of the aircraft and holes, an anti-aircraft missile exploded 15 m above the aircraft. The Minister of Defense of Ukraine at a conference in Kyiv apologized to the families and friends of those killed in the crash of the Russian Tu-154 aircraft: “We know that we are involved in the tragedy, although its causes have not yet been fully established.”

Ukrainian expertise

Legal investigation and claims for damages

The Prosecutor General's Office of Russia opened a criminal case under the article "Terrorism" on the fact of the disaster passenger aircraft Tu-154 over the Black Sea. . After the publication of the commission's findings on October 16, 2001, the case was transferred to the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine, the Russian side officially closed the case.

On June 28, 2002, an interdepartmental commission was established to settle claims in connection with the Tu-154 crash over the Black Sea, which was headed by Deputy. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation V. V. Loshchinin, head of the legal department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation R. A. Kolodkin was appointed his deputy. On the same day, the Fund for Assistance to the Families of the Lost Passengers of Flight 1812 Tel Aviv Novosibirsk was registered. B. V. Kalinovsky was elected the head of the fund, coordinating the relations of the interdepartmental commission with the relatives of the victims.

In accordance with the Claims Settlement Agreement signed by Russia and Ukraine on December 26, 2003, the Ukrainian government transferred $7,809,660 to pay the relatives of the victims Russian passengers. Compensation was paid ex gratia, that is, without recognition of legal liability.

On September 20, 2004, the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine closed the criminal case on the fact of the crash, since the investigation did not establish objective data that would reliably indicate that the Tu-154 was shot down by an S-200 missile launched during the exercises of the Ukrainian air defense forces. On October 19, 2004, the Military Court of the Kyiv Garrison canceled the decision of the Prosecutor General's Office to close the case, the Supreme Court did not satisfy the complaint of the Prosecutor General's Office with a request to cancel this decision, and the investigation was resumed, but in July 2007 the case was finally closed with the previous wording.

Immediately after the court decision, the head of the Fund for Assistance to the Families of the Victims, Boris Kalinovsky, and the Belonogov family, who refused to receive material assistance, filed a lawsuit in court for compensation for moral damage - the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Defense and the State Treasury of Ukraine were the defendants. The case was considered in the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv and on January 30, 2008 compensation was completely denied. In the motivational part of the refusal, it was indicated that the fault of the defendants in the accident was not established by the investigation of the prosecutor's office, the evidence cited by the plaintiffs is contradictory and cannot be recognized as the basis for satisfying the claim. The losing party did not appeal against the decision of the court.

Simultaneously with the lawsuit filed by the relatives of the victims, Siberia Airlines JSC filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the State Treasury of Ukraine for damages: the amount of claims included the market value of the destroyed aircraft with additional equipment, the costs associated with the investigation of the crash, the costs of insurance, lost profits in connection with the loss of the aircraft and non-pecuniary damage. The consideration of the case lasted more than seven years and ended with the victory of the Defense Ministry of Ukraine: based on the additional analysis of the materials of the State Commission for Investigation conducted by the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Examination, the claims were completely denied. On October 10, 2011, the losing party filed an appeal with the Kyiv Economic Court of Appeal.

On May 28, 2012, the Kyiv Economic Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint Russian airline"Siberia" (S7 Airlines) against the decision of the court of first instance, which did not recognize the guilt of the Ukrainian military in the crash of the Russian Tu-154 in 2001. On December 11, 2012, the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine upheld the decision. Representatives of the airline announced their intention to apply to the European Court of Human Rights, however, after the Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to refer the case to the Supreme Court of Ukraine on April 21, 2013, the airline, having gone through all possible instances in Ukraine, did not take the opportunity to apply to the ECHR. Thus, the financial claims of "Siberia" were not satisfied.

Versions of the causes of the disaster

Operator error

The S-200 anti-aircraft missile system uses a semi-active guidance system, when a powerful ground-based radar ("target illumination") serves as a source of radiation and the missile is guided by the signal reflected from the target. In the S-200, there are two main modes of operation of the target illumination radar - MHI (monochromatic radiation) and FCM (phase code modulation). MHI mode is commonly used for scanning airspace when searching for targets, the elevation angle, azimuth and radial velocity of the target are determined, but there is no determination of the range to the target. The range is determined in the FKM mode, switching the radar to this mode takes up to 30 seconds and may not be performed if there is not enough time.

It is most likely that during training firing with the participation of Ukrainian air defense, which were held on October 4, 2001 at Cape Opuk in the Crimea (31st test site of the Black Sea Fleet, which is under the control of the RF Ministry of Defense), the Ty-154 aircraft accidentally ended up in the center of the alleged firing sector training target and had a radial speed close to it, as a result of which it was detected by the S-200 system radar and taken as a training target. Under the pressure of time and the nervousness caused by the presence of high command and foreign guests, the S-200 operator did not determine the range to the target and “highlighted” the Tu-154 (located at a distance of 250-300 km) instead of an inconspicuous training target (launched at a distance of 60 km). Thus, the defeat of the Tu-154 by an anti-aircraft missile was most likely the result not of a missile missing a training target (as is sometimes claimed), but of direct guidance of the missile by the S-200 operator at an erroneously identified target.

The calculation of the complex did not assume the possibility of such an outcome of the shooting and did not take measures to prevent it. The dimensions of the range did not ensure the safety of firing air defense systems of such a range. The organizers of the firing did not take the necessary measures to free the airspace: flights were prohibited only within a radius of 50 km, although the "passport" range of hitting targets with the S-200V complex was 255 km, and the technical range of the 5V28 / 5V28M missile was about 300 km.

But since the distance to the place of detection of the wreckage of the aircraft is more than 340 km, and even more to the place where the missile hit the aircraft, the version of the defeat by the S-200V complex looks unconvincing.

terrorist attack

Due to the absence of the remains of the aircraft and flight recorders, which were never found, finding out the absolutely reliable causes of the crash was recognized by the KNIISE examination as impossible, but based on the available information, Ukrainian experts suggested that the aircraft was damaged by an explosive device that could be located "between the ceiling of the inner part of the aircraft" and its body.

Personnel implications

According to the results of an internal investigation, 20 days after the tragedy, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Oleksandr Kuzmuk resigned. A few more people also “suffered”: the commander-in-chief of air defense, Colonel General V. V. Tkachev, his deputy for combat training, Lieutenant General V. V. Dyakov (head of missile firing at the Opuk training ground that day), and the head of the radio engineering troops were fired from the army Air Defense Major General Y. Korotkov, Colonels A. Lunev and N. Zhilkov, Lieutenant Colonels M. Alpatov and V. Shevchenko. Lieutenant General V. Kalinyuk, commander of the 49th corps, was dismissed from his post. The commander of the S-200 division, Major Y. Wenger, was transferred to a lower position. However, none of the military has been taken to court.

The reaction of the highest officials of the states affected by the disaster

Russia

Firstly, all the necessary services in Ukraine were informed in advance. Secondly, the weapons that were used at that time, according to tactical and technical data, could not reach the air corridors in which our aircraft was located ...

In any case, there is no reason not to trust the Ukrainian side.

Ukraine

Look what's going on around the world, in Europe? We are not the first and not the last, there is no need to make a tragedy out of this. Mistakes happen everywhere, and not only on this scale, but on a much larger, planetary scale. If we do not lower ourselves below the civilized level, everything will be fine. And if we pour a bucket of dirt on ourselves, then you are welcome.

Israel

The statement of the Ukrainian president “there are tragedies on a larger scale” shocked the world community. The frivolous statement of L. D. Kuchma provoked an angry reaction from official Israel. The press secretary of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon commented on the Ukrainian President's statement:

When the victim is not a member of your people, then perhaps it is possible to make such academic inferences. 78 people died, most of them Israelis - for us this is the greatest tragedy.

Cultural aspects

perpetuation of memory

Similar cases of destruction of airliners by means of air defense

Notes

1. WE HAVE HAPPENED (indefinite) . 2001.novayagazeta.ru. Retrieved February 5, 2017.
2. I not I and rocket not mine // Evening Novosibirsk. - 23.08.2007.
3. Plane crash flight Tu‑154 Tel Aviv - Novosibirsk  (2001). Reference . RIA News .
4. The investigation is over, forget it / Lenta.ru June 18, 2004
5. Description of the crash on the Aviation Safety Network website.
6. Kuzmuk left. Kuchma banned military exercises and the use of anti-aircraft missile systems // Ukrainskaya Pravda. - 24.10.2001.
7. The secret that lies at the bottom. Political interests intervened in the investigation of the plane crash over the Black Sea ten years ago, Expert Online (04.10.2011). Retrieved 13 August 2016.
8. The GPU will figure out how the plane was shot down under Kuzmuk. // Ukrainian truth. - 28.10.2005.
9. Ukraine transferred to Russia 7.8 million dollars compensations for downed Tu-154. Lenta.ru, 12/15/2004.
10. The court did not find the fault of the Ukrainian military in the crash of the Russian Tu-154. RIA Novosti, 6.9.2011.
11. The court did not find the fault of the Ukrainian military in the crash of the Russian Tu-154 (indefinite) . RIA Novosti (06.09.2011). Retrieved 17 July 2014.
12. RA-85693 - russianplanes.net - Card board
13. Flight 1812 Tel Aviv - Novosibirsk: Crew: Garov Evgeny Viktorovich (indefinite) . JSC Siberia Airlines in memory of passengers and crew of flight 1812 Tel Aviv - Novosibirsk. Retrieved 6 August 2014.

On board the Tu-154 flying to Syria were two crew members and 84 passengers. More than 3 thousand people are involved in the search operation in the Black Sea. The commission of the Ministry of Defense is still considering all possible versions of the Tu-154 crash, including a terrorist act, a gross violation of the rules for operating the aircraft and a technical malfunction. According to a source in the Russian Aerospace Forces, it will be possible to talk about the priority of any of the versions only "after examining the wreckage of the aircraft and a forensic medical examination of the remains of the crew and passengers."

According to official data from the Ministry of Defense, on December 25, there were 92 people on board, including eight crew members, eight military personnel, Anton Gubankov, head of the Department of Culture of the Russian Defense Ministry, with his assistant Oksana Badrutdinova, Dr. Lisa, who transported medicines to Syria, nine journalists and 64 artists of the . Alexandrova.

Fontanka's source in the Ministry of Defense says that he would not blindly trust this list, since a reliable list of surnames may not exist: “The list was redone 10 times, the artists changed. And all the time from the General Staff on each side travelers arrive before the flight, the commander cannot refuse to take them. Only the commander had an exact flight sheet, drafts remained on the ground.

website page screenshot

Investigative Committee on the fact of the tragedy in Krasnodar Territory filed a criminal case under Article 351 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - a violation of flight rules that entailed grave consequences - however, retraining is not ruled out, as in the case of a civilian plane crash over Sinai.

At present, at the Chkalovsky military airfield, investigators are seizing the technical documentation of the deceased aircraft, fuel samples, and all persons involved in preparing the aircraft for flight are being interrogated. Questions were raised by the number and composition of military cargo in the Tu-154. In addition to the personal luggage of passengers, special mail was carried on board, as well as various military equipment.

Fontanka discussed with experts the arguments in favor or against the main versions.

Alignment and overload

An additional factor that led to the disaster could be an error when loading the aircraft, a source in the Russian Defense Ministry told Fontanka. Firstly, the plane was heading to Syria to the Russian military and could be loaded to the limit. Secondly, the technicians could make a mistake with the location of the cargo in the luggage compartment, which would lead to a misalignment of the aircraft.

During flight, the aircraft is kept in the air due to the lift generated due to the difference in pressure under and above the wing. Simplified, this can be represented as a swing, where the nose and tail are opposite ends, and the cross section of the wing is the fulcrum. Balance is maintained by speed and elevator trims. Unexpected or uncontrolled movement of the aircraft load can lead to a sharp change in the center of gravity and loss of control. As a result, the aircraft will either begin to dive uncontrollably, or, on the contrary, will raise its nose until reaching supercritical wing angles of attack, loss of lift and stall.

In the history of the operation of the Tu-154, there was already a crash that occurred for this reason on takeoff in 1993. Civilian Tu-154B with tail number 85222 operated a Transair Georgia flight from Tbilisi. When the takeoff speed was reached, the crew raised the nose landing gear, but the aircraft did not take off, but continued to roll along the runway. As a result, he went to the ground and crashed into the building of the radio beacon. The crash killed 24 people on board and four others on the ground. The commission found that the technicians carried out the loading of the aircraft even without the centering charts of the Tu-154 aircraft.

According to the former commander of the military transport aviation regiment of the Russian Ministry of Defense, reserve colonel Leonid Kupleshnikov, the fact that the plane took off and climbed for several minutes indicates that there were no problems with centering and engines: “The flight engineer and the second the pilot personally, this is their bread. The most experienced serve in Chkalovsky, they do not make such mistakes.” The honored pilot noted that for an aircraft of this type, 92 passengers are very unimportant. a large number of and there can be no talk of overloading. “Weapons and ammunition are transported by transport aircraft, in the Tu-154 - only personnel, personal belongings and mail,” he said.

weather conditions

According to the aviation meteorological report, at the time of departure of the Tu-154 at Adler airport, simple weather conditions were observed: wind 4 m / s, visibility without restrictions, cloud base 1000 meters. However, in the Rostov air zone, which includes Adler Airport, there was a SIGMET (Significant Meteorological Information) - an aviation telegram about adverse weather conditions, that heavy icing with supercooled rain could be observed in the Crimean region, which leads to the formation of ice on air surfaces. vessel.

skyvector.com
skyvector.com

In the case of ice formation on the surface of the wing, it begins to lose its aerodynamic properties and, as a result, lift. In this case, the ice increases the weight of the aircraft. If we assume that the fallen Tu-154 was overloaded before takeoff, this could be a critical factor. In addition, ice growing on the control surfaces blocks the control surfaces, and then the aircraft becomes uncontrollable. The ice also blocks the remote pitot tube, which measures the airspeed of the aircraft by the movement of air inside it. In the event of a pitot tube failure, the speedometer in the cockpit may show false readings. For example, a speed of zero kilometers per hour.

For example, the crew of an Aeroflot flight from Chelyabinsk to Moscow in 1986 got into such a situation. Tu-154B-2 tail number 85327 fell into thunderclouds while descending over the capital. At an altitude of 3600 meters, while avoiding a thundercloud, the pilots saw the speed on the speedometer drop to zero. The flight took place in continuous cloud cover without visual references. To accelerate the plane, the pilots sent it to the ground, but the speedometer needle continued to show zero. The plane left the clouds at an altitude of 1800 meters, the pilots got their bearings and began to take it to the horizon. As a result of the incident, none of those on board were injured. After landing, the commission found that the aircraft was descending at a vertical speed of 100 m/s and an airspeed of 813 km/h. During the withdrawal maneuver, the Tu-154 was subjected to overloads of 3.2G, which significantly exceeds the maximum allowable. After this flight, the aircraft was written off and never again took to the skies.

Technical malfunction

According to a number of media sources, one of the priorities of the commission is considering the version of the technical malfunction of the aircraft. Honored Pilot Leonid Kupleshnikov agrees with this.

“At the third minute of the flight, the crew is piloting manually, the autopilot is not yet turned on. Flap cleaning in progress. On this type (Tu-154. - Note. ed.) there were cases non-synchronous cleaning flaps. In this case, a strong heeling moment arises, and the aircraft can roll over, it is very difficult for the crew to fend off such a malfunction, ”says the reserve colonel.

In turn, the Ministry of Defense reported that the aircraft was released in 1983. On December 29, 2014, the last repair was carried out, and scheduled maintenance was carried out this autumn.

terrorist attack

The version of the terrorist act, according to Fontanka's sources, is also being considered, but is not the key one.

The loading of a military aircraft is controlled personally by the crew members. Aviation security requirements at a military airfield are more lenient and do not provide for checking all cargo and passengers before landing. “The flight engineer can selectively look at the cargo if something confuses him, but this is rare. And some goods, such as mail, are prohibited from opening. Now the special services are checking all the military units that sent their cargo on this aircraft,” said an officer serving at the Chkalovsky airfield.

After the disaster, FSB representatives check all the personnel who prepared the liner for departure. According to the source, surveillance cameras do not cover the entire territory of the military airfield, and in theory an explosive device could be carried on board before departure. Also, the bomb could be among the medicines that Elizaveta Glinka (Dr. Lisa) was carrying. “It is not known who and how collected this cargo, the Ministry of Defense had nothing to do with it,” he said.

Another expert in the field of combating terrorism, in a conversation with Fontanka, noted that Adler airport is many times safer than Chkalovsky: “Adler was equipped with everything necessary before the Olympics, there is continuous operational work with personnel, and Chkalovsky is a military mess. The Ministry of Defense protects its air bases abroad and in dangerous regions, and in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the level of security has not changed much since Soviet times.”

According to the expert, the military will completely refute the version of the terrorist attack, because this will cause enormous damage to the image of the military department. “If a terrorist attack is confirmed, the entire top of the VKS will lose their posts,” he said.

According to him, the version of the terrorist attack will become a priority if traces of an explosion are found on the wreckage of the Tu-154. Then "they will go through the entire chain of communications between the crew, passengers and technicians, they will look for the weak link." He considered the version of a bomb among Dr. Glinka's medicines unlikely.

“A bomb in medicines is smart, it’s hard to find, but then the explosion would have been on departure from Moscow. No one will take so long, they blow it up right away, remember Sinai, ”he said.

Speaking about other possibilities to commit a terrorist act, the expert called the use of MANPADS by the sabotage group. “At the takeoff stage, it is easy to shoot down a passenger plane with MANPADS, even if you shoot after it,” he said and suggested waiting for the examination of the fragments of the liner. “If there was a MANPADS, fragments of striking elements will be found,” the expert added, noting that this is an extremely unlikely version, but it also has the right to life.

Human factor

The concept of "human factors" is widely used in the results of the investigation of aviation accidents and can mean a failure at various stages of the preparation or execution of a flight. The human factor is when the aviation security service passes a threat inside the airport perimeter or the ground crew makes a mistake when maintenance aircraft.

“The human factor is called a drunken crew or pilots who could not correctly assess the situation in time. Theoretically, any of them could have been in the Tu-154 crash over the Black Sea. However, it is too early to draw any conclusions now,” Fontanka experts say, adding that we need to wait for the results of the investigation of the commission headed by the head of the Ministry of Transport, Maxim Sokolov.

According to Leonid Kupleshnikov, one can talk about crew errors "only after decoding the flight recorders", the so-called "black boxes". The head of the Ministry of Transport, Maxim Sokolov, has already said that the Tu-154 recorders were not equipped with acoustic beacons, which means that in order to search for them, “an area survey of the bottom topography using side-scan sonars” will be needed. high definition". According to experts, the search for recorders not equipped with radio beacons can take months and "will require an expensive underwater search expedition with an implicit result."

Ivan Baranov,
Andrey Menshenin,
Fontanka.ru

Photos of fragments crashed plane commented for "KP" the president of the Union of Experts of Russia "AS" Yuri Antipov

"THE PLANE COULD BEGIN TO DESTROY IN THE AIR"

Cases of successful emergency water landings are known (see Help below). But nowhere was there such damage - the skin torn to shreds, parts of the wings torn off with meat. And that's all - after falling into the water from a height of 250 meters? Maybe because those landings were made in the daytime, but here it was at night?

Night or day, it doesn't matter. The main thing is that at the time of the disaster the sea was calm. And its surface could be clearly seen with the searchlights of the liner.

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

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

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

- That is, the plane could just crash land?

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

Condition of the fuselage skin above the wing

SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE CARGO COMPARTMENT

According to the Ministry of Defense, the plane flew over the sea at a speed of about 360 km / h at an altitude of about 250 meters. So why, despite the small height gained by the aircraft, the debris was scattered over a large area, and the bodies of the dead received significant damage?

Let's look at one characteristic fragment - this is a part of the fuselage on the right side near the door.

Upper part of the doorway

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

Lower left corner of the doorway

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

The fold of the skin is indicated by a black line

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

It seems that the bending of the wreckage occurred under the influence of a certain force directed from inside the aircraft

It seems that the bending of the wreckage occurred under the influence of some force directed from inside the aircraft. A lot of pressure, so bending structural elements, tearing off the skin and folding it in half with cotton, was at the bottom in cargo hold Tu-154. If the separation of the wreckage and its folding in half were when the plane hit the water, then the edges of the wreckage would simply be flattened.

- What could happen in the cargo hold?

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

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

Perhaps the engines began to fail, in which the detached debris fell. But the plane still retained survivability. The pilots, not seeing the damage, I think, did not understand what had happened, and began to turn the plane back on its course. And since the source of damage was located in the central part of the aircraft near the wings, the aircraft began to lose fuel even at the first moment of the turn.

Location on the wreckage of a technological niche

The interior floor collapsed. Passengers, cargo, things began to fall out of the belly of a flying plane. At a speed of at least 350 km / h, the bodies of the passengers hit the water. Hence the large number of body fragments. The dilapidated fuselage of the aircraft returning to the ground continued to collapse under the influence of aerodynamic forces. And when it hit the surface of the water 1.7 km from the coast, the destroyed fuselage structure could no longer reliably protect and save the lives of the passengers still on board. The loss of passengers and cargo in the front area through the opening in the belly of the aircraft (the second door is in front of the wings) violated the balance of the aircraft. Therefore, an eyewitness saw the crash of the plane before hitting the water with an unnaturally turned up nose.

Was there another version that the pilot mixed up the switches and instead of retracting the landing gear, retracted the flaps? Could the plane burst in the air from overloads?

All these assumptions are based on the premise that the pilots are idiots. But they are not idiots. Landing gear retracts within a maximum of one minute after liftoff. If the flaps are retracted instead, the wing will begin to lose lift and the aircraft will go into a nose down position instead of up.

By the way, today in "KP" I read a note that on the beach in Sochi, the wreckage of the Tu-154 was thrown out by the sea. It says that among the found was a heavily melted fan. So draw conclusions - where does the fan melt from if there was no explosion on board, the plane just fell into the sea?

How is the death of the Tu-154 in Sochi different from similar cases

1. Emergency landing A320 on the Hudson. January 2009 An Airbus A320 was flying from New York to Seattle. 1.5 minutes after takeoff, the liner collided with a flock of birds, which caused both engines to fail. The crew safely landed the plane on the water of the Hudson River (the case went down in history under the name "Miracle on the Hudson").

People: All 155 passengers and 5 crew members escaped.

Damage to the aircraft: did not collapse, remained on the surface of the water, passengers were waiting for rescuers, standing on the wings.

2.Boeing 767 crash Indian Ocean. November 1996 The airliner flew from Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) to Nigeria, 20 minutes later was hijacked by three terrorists who demanded to fly to Australia and not listening to the pilots that there was not enough fuel for such a long flight from Africa. After 3 thousand km, the fuel ran out, and the crew commander went to forced landing half a kilometer from Comoros in the Indian Ocean.

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

Aircraft damage: broke into four pieces on impact with the water and sank.

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

People: All 45 passengers and 7 crew members survived.

Aircraft damage: received holes and sank. Then he was pulled out and used as a simulator.

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

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

Damage to the aircraft: did not collapse, began to slowly sink. Later it was taken out, but a month later it was written off.

5. The crash of the Tu-154 in the Black Sea. December 2016. Russian Air Force aircraft Tu-154 was flying from Moscow to Syria. Landed in Sochi for refueling. After taking off, he fell into the sea after 70 seconds, having managed to fly 1700 meters and gain a height of 250 meters.

Tu-154 crash over the Black Sea. Infographics.

People: All 92 people on board were killed - 84 passengers and 8 crew members. According to divers - participants in the search operation, there were few whole bodies.

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

photo: Vladimir Velengurin, Alexey Bulatov