The true reasons for the crash of plane TU 154. “Is it perhaps collective insanity?”
Important: There were no reports that the controller monitoring the radar received reports of problems on board.
In the very first hours, a version appeared on social networks that it was a terrorist attack, since a plane with three engines that has passed all diagnostic procedures, especially if it is a TU-154, which is flown by top-class pilots in excellent weather, does not suddenly disappear on its own from radars. If anyone is interested, google TU-154 and look at the list of incidents.
At the same time, the official media began to emphasize that this was anything, even a meteorite, but not a terrorist attack, on the sole grounds that the special services could not allow this. That is, the FSB could not “screw up”, because the FSB cannot “screw up”.
Later, information came about the wreckage, the radius of which clearly indicated that the plane was destroyed in the air, but even then the media quickly attributed everything to powerful currents that allegedly carried the wreckage away. This version is easily verified by divers, since parts capable of floating could actually be carried away by the current, but heavy ones, be they seats, engines or chassis, in the event of destruction on the water, as the media are trying to prove, they will be nearby, and in the event of a terrorist attack they will be at a decent distance. from a friend at the bottom.
At the same time, we are informed that the passengers were found wearing vests, that is, they had enough time for the commander to announce that a problem had been discovered, take out the vests, unfold them and put them on, being in a sleepy state, because they were flying out of Moscow at night. And this time was not enough for the pilots to press the switch and thereby report a problem?
Is this possible? I think no.
Added December 27. The version with vests was refuted; the big question is where it came from, being untenable based on official data.
The media picked up a new version that it was an overload, but again, it was officially reported that the plane was only refueled and even food was not delivered on board, where did the overload come from? There were 92 people on board, the plane was designed for 180 passengers, and how could the plane fly from Moscow to Adler with the same load?
Another version that someone threw into the media is that low-quality fuel caused three engines to fail at once. The version is again weak. I’m not a pilot, but as a motorist I know that if you add “donkey urine” to half a normal tank, then complete engine failure will not occur. The range of the TU-154B-2 when fully loaded is 2780 km. The distance from Moscow to Sochi is approximately 1300 km, and it is very doubtful that in Moscow the plane was half fueled, it simply does not make any sense, charters can save money this way, but not the military.
In general, the version with fuel both appeared and disappeared.
At the moment, the priority version is the ingress of foreign objects into the engine. But one must assume that they will also abandon it for the simple reason that the TU-154 has three engines.
Another strange thing. It was officially reported that refueling was initially planned in Mozdok, but due to weather conditions the plane was redirected to Sochi. However, if you look up the weather archive, it was clear in Mozdok on December 25 at night, about -11C and practically calm.
It should be taken into account that with the range of this modification of the TU-154 being 2780 km, the declared route to Syria through the Caspian Sea, Iran and Iraq, flying around Georgia and Azerbaijan, is about 2500 km, which is actually at the limit of the range, while the route from Mozdok 2100.
Everyone settled on the possibility that they could not have planted a bomb during refueling, perhaps, but where is the guarantee that it was not planted in Moscow? The idea is also being actively promoted that refueling was planned in Mozdok, and not in Adler, and no one could have known that the plane would be redirected, but was there any point in redirecting it?
Even more interesting information came from Kommersant, they say there was a witness who saw the plane hit the water with its tail. At 5:30 a.m., at sunrise at 8 a.m., that is, in complete darkness, a witness saw a plane 4-6 km from the shore touching the water with its tail... And this is taking into account that visibility to the horizon is about 5 km...
With all these oddities, as well as the reaction of the media and officials, who from the first hours, even before the discovery of the wreckage, began to repeat the mantra “this is not a terrorist attack” and invent versions on the fly that do not stand up to any criticism, for me personally, based on all this data - this is a terrorist attack and until the opposite is proven, there can be no other version.
Officially they talk about a technical malfunction or pilot error, but experts are surprised at how quickly the version of a terrorist attack on board the Tu-154 was rejected
A Tu-154 aircraft of the Russian Ministry of Defense, flying from Sochi to Latakia (Syria), disappeared from radar screens early on Sunday morning. It later turned out that the plane crashed in the Black Sea. A Tu-154 of the Russian Ministry of Defense crashed 5 km from the coast - closer to Anapa. Among the dead were journalists, military personnel and musicians of the famous Alexandrov ensemble. Website Segodnya.ua I have collected all the versions that rescuers and Russian journalists are currently discussing.
Version of the Russian Ministry of Defense
According to the Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, Viktor Ozerov, the cause of the Tu-154 crash may be technical malfunction or pilot error. At the same time, according to him, a terrorist attack has been ruled out.
“I completely exclude the version of a terrorist attack. The plane of the Ministry of Defense, the airspace of the Russian Federation, there cannot be such a version here,” RIA Novosti agency quotes Ozerov as saying.
Other versions
Candidate of Technical Sciences Vadim Lukashevich in a commentary to Novaya Gazeta stated that it is dangerous to discard version of the terrorist attack.
“This is very serious. When an Airbus was blown up over the Sinai, the whole world knew that it was a terrorist attack. All intelligence agencies reported that we were the only ones fooling around for two weeks. It’s just that if this is a terrorist attack, we need to understand that this is our answer for Aleppo,” he noted.
Andrei Krasnoperov, a major in the Russian Air Force, in a comment to Novaya Gazeta, also did not rule out the possibility of a terrorist attack: “I compare this disaster with Sharm el-Sheikh. The same: the plane disappears from radar, then it turns out that its tail has come off, and after a huge amount of time we are informed about the terrorist attack"
“You see, for a pilot to press the distress signal button it takes a split second. About any malfunctions, about anything, the pilot’s first duty is to press the button and report to the ground. But here it’s empty, there’s a loss of communication. Then, fragments of the plane scatter over a distance of 15 km. This means that it fell apart in the air. The plane is strong, even if it falls into the water, its wing, okay, can fall off, but it will not fall apart. People cannot just be scattered over several kilometers (the correspondent’s passport was found several kilometers from chassis),” a Russian Air Force major expressed his opinion.
And Lukashevich also commented on the first official statements about the versions of the Tu-154 crash. “The most probable are a pilot error and a technical malfunction. But the fact is that in 7 minutes of flight the plane manages to gain a decent altitude. For that altitude, the debris found in completely different places is too much. This suggests that it began to collapse in air. No technical malfunction can lead to the destruction of an airplane in the air. An airplane is a fairly reliable thing. If destruction began to occur in the sky, it means that something extraordinary has already happened there," he explained.
Lukashevich is also alarmed by the fact that the landing gear of the plane fell off. “The landing gear of the plane could have been torn off if it was landing, if the pilots did not have time to remove it. But, you see, seven minutes is a long time, the pilots could not help but remove the landing gear. If the landing gear was not retracted, they would have reported it.” , the expert explained.
An Interfax source said that among the versions of the Tu-154 plane crash - bird getting into the engine. The agency's interlocutor noted that not far from Sochi airport there is a migratory bird station and an ornithopark.
“Then two or three engines should go out at once. But at an altitude of two or three kilometers they have a lot of time to make a decision. A striking example is the “miracle on the Hudson.” The plane almost immediately after takeoff fell into a flock of birds, the pilots had several minutes to make decisions deciding what to do next. You need to be aware of this thing: a sudden loss of communication is a sudden impact on the entire aircraft, that’s all,” Lukashevich said.
A Fontanka source in the Ministry of Defense said that the plane crash could have occurred due to errors when loading it. The publication’s interlocutor says that too much cargo could have been placed on board the Tu-154, and the ground staff could have made a mistake with the placement of the cargo inside the luggage compartment.
It is worth noting that information about passengers on board the Tu-154 is being clarified. The Russian Ministry of Defense announced on the afternoon of December 25 that 92 people were killed, not 93, as the department had previously reported.
An Interfax interlocutor said that two flights to Syria were planned for Sunday. On board the first there were supposed to be journalists and musicians, on board the second - medicines and gifts. However, the source did not say whether the second plane took off.
The investigation into the criminal case initiated into the aviation accident of a Tu-154 aircraft on December 25, 2016 near the Sochi airport continues in accordance with the procedure established by Russian legislation.
156 people were recognized as victims in the criminal case.
To date, work has been carried out with more than 100 witnesses, including officials of the Aerospace Forces, as well as employees of Sochi International Airport JSC, who were responsible for preparing the aircraft for flight and air traffic control.
With the participation of experts, a comprehensive commission flight technical forensic examination of the aircraft flight is carried out.
Conclusions were obtained based on the results of 356 forensic, 23 molecular genetic, 3 explosive and one phonoscopic examinations. A forensic chemical examination of fuels and lubricants has also been completed.
All objective data obtained allow us to completely exclude the possibility of an explosion on board the aircraft.
Active procedural interaction has been established with citizens injured as a result of the plane crash.
The progress of the preliminary investigation in this criminal case is under constant control of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.
Official representative of the Russian Investigative Committee S. Petrenko
Question one: what new did we learn from the SK message?
Answer: we didn’t learn anything new.
Starting from December 27, 2016, all government representatives (Ministry of Defense, MAC, Ministry of Transport) repeated the same thing: there was NO explosion on board. Nothing exploded, didn’t burn, didn’t boom, didn’t tear people’s bodies into small pieces, didn’t throw the wreckage of the plane several kilometers apart. Today they repeated the old mantra to us: if anyone saw the CONSEQUENCES of the explosion, they should not believe their eyes. Although p After the emergency, a frame taken a few seconds after the Tu-154 took off hit the Internet. It shows a flash on board the airliner, which some experts interpreted as an explosion. But...inthere was no explosion! This is evidenced by 356 forensic, 23 molecular genetic, 3 explosive and one phonoscopic examinations.
However, the country and the world are largely interested not in whether there was or was not a terrorist attack or an explosion of ammunition on board, but in the real REASON for the crash. Over the course of a year of work, the investigation refuted only one out of dozens or hundreds possible versions.
Therefore, let's set Question two: why did the Tu-154 crash?
There is no answer in the official message of the Investigative Committee. That is, not at all. None. Not a hint. No guess... Although not yet On May 24, 2017, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that the final version of the cause of the disaster was “99% clear” and promised to reveal it soon. Didn't name...
It turns out that one the missing percentage to complete the picture and formulate the causes of the tragedy was not found until December 25, 2017. The Investigative Committee's references to the need to interview 100 witnesses look ridiculous. What did dozens of investigators do for a whole year if they didn’t manage to interview 100 people in 12 months - note, not bandits who still need to be searched for and caught using thieves’ “khazas” and “raspberries”, but military and civilian specialists who come for interrogations first requirement?
Let us remind you what exactly is the order of actions of investigators after a plane crash. Here is a schematic diagram of a flight accident investigation network diagram:
There are at least 12 main methods that investigative commissions use when investigating plane crashes:
1.Search for the four ends of the plane (to determine whether it broke up in the air or when it hit the ground);
2.Search for voice and flight recorders. Listening;
3.Checking radio communications with the dispatcher;
4.ATIS summary (thunderstorms, hail, microbursts);
5. Search and assembly of debris (all systems);
6.Testing similar models under similar conditions
7.Tests in the simulator;
8. Study of pilots’ personal files (psychological factor)
9.Checking passengers using tickets and cargo using invoices (probability of a terrorist attack);
10.Interview of survivors, eyewitnesses;
11. Pathological anatomy of corpses;
12.View video of the crash.
Work under the “mandatory program” of air investigators, as many years of world practice shows, takes from several days to several months(if there are black boxes and wreckage of the airliner, and in our case they were removed in the very first days after the accident, the time frame is reduced to several weeks).
According to the aviators website Avia.pro, to increase the efficiency and completeness of the investigation of serious flight accidents in some countries, for example, Canada, they are creating accident investigation charts.
The documentation produced during an accident investigation varies in form and content in different countries. In some countries, a standard form is being introduced that facilitates the computer processing of information about flight accidents, reduces the time for filling out documentation and ensures the completeness of the material actually collected. The documentation group prepares: an information report on the flight accident; factual material obtained during the investigation; reports, reports of groups included in the commission; a report on the causes of the flight accident, the conclusions of which are supported by factual data and logically justified.
Please note that the investigation schedules are very tight in terms of time and do not allow for months of delays on the part of the investigation. In order, for example, to determine whether there was an explosion on board an airplane or not, it is enough to study the nature of the damage to the wreckage (the impact force coming from the inside turns it outward). Traces of explosives are also found within a day or two after the accident (an example is the Russian plane blown up over Sinai).
The global regulations for the investigation of aircraft accidents include timely information the public about the progress of the investigation and its results. For example, the world learned about the reasons for the crash of a German airliner that crashed into an Alpine mountain on March 24, 2015 exactly two days later - already on March 26 (the car with passengers was killed by a crazy pilot). Publicity is necessary not only to satisfy the LEGAL demands of the relatives of the victims (they must know exactly how their loved ones died and who is to blame for this), but also for the professional community - pilots and airlines around the world are closely studying the causes of disasters in order to AVOID them in your work. In this sense, the openness of the investigation is difficult to overestimate!
There are also very few examples of a different kind - when the investigation, even years later, cannot formulate the cause of the accident.
The most famous case, of course, is missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 . On March 8, 2014, a passenger airliner carrying 239 people suddenly stopped responding to air traffic controllers and literally disappeared into a radar blind spot over the Indian Ocean. They searched for the plane for several months until the wreckage was discovered thousands of kilometers from the search zone.
However, the Russian Tu-154 did not even fly out of line of sight from the Sochi airport... Against this background, the silence and unprecedented secrecy of the authorities in informing about the results of the investigation looks simply indecent. As Gazeta.ru notes, information about the completion of the investigation was not provided on the website of the RF Ministry of Defense, no official press release was published, and no press conference was held following the investigation. What “NI” repeatedly reminded all organizations and individuals involved in the investigation.
Now, no longer by way of speculation, but we can say for sure: the authorities HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE. For example, a completely convincing version of Novaya Gazetathat in the cockpit, in the co-pilot’s seat, there was a stranger, not trained and not authorized to fly, who mixed up the levers, retracting the flaps and leaving the landing gear.
“What kind of substance settled on the intake tracts of the Tu-154 engine? It is very likely that before stopping, the aircraft’s engines sucked in sprayed finely dispersed explosion products. Such “sticky little things” cannot form due to simple mechanical destruction of the aircraft structure (for example, when it hits water) " - asked independent technical expert Yuri Antipov.
We, of course, did not wait for an answer either to this question or to many other.
So the authorities themselves provide reasons and grounds for any “speculation” on the topic of the tragedy.
Published 01/10/17 10:23Latest news about the crashed Tu-154 plane in Sochi: experts explained why a defense department plane crashed over the Black Sea on December 25 last year.
The cause of the plane crash in Sochi, the latest news: why the Tu-154 crashed over the Black Sea, experts from the Ministry of Defense said
Based on the results of a complete decoding of the parametric and voice flight recorders of the Tu-154 aircraft, in December 2017, experts from the Ministry of Defense spoke about the causes of the crash. According to experts, the airliner and its passengers were destroyed by a combination of several factors: the plane went to Syria overloaded, and co-pilot Alexander Rovensky mixed up the landing gear and flap control levers during takeoff, and when intkbbach The crew noticed the mistake, but it was already too late: the heavy Tu-154 did not have enough altitude for a rescue maneuver, and it was the rear part of the fuselage, after which it collapsed.
A Life source familiar with the investigation said that the human factor was considered the priority version of the crash.
“The data from speech and parametric (recording the operation of all components of the aircraft) recorders studied by experts from the Research Center for the Operation and Repair of Aircraft of the Ministry of Defense in Lyubertsy say that in the third minute of the flight, when the airliner was at an altitude of 450 meters above sea level, the directional stability system sensors were activated “The car began to sharply lose altitude due to,” the publication quotes a source.
Experts say this happened after the co-pilot, 33-year-old captain Alexander Rovensky, retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear.
“This caused the plane to go into an extreme angle of attack, the crew tried to turn the plane to reach the ground, but they didn’t have time to do this,” the source emphasized.
The situation was aggravated by the overload of the Tu-154, which caused the tail section of the aircraft to be pulled down.
The source claims that the emergency situation came as a complete surprise to the crew: the airliner’s commander, 35-year-old Major Roman Volkov, and co-pilot Alexander Rovensky were confused in the first seconds, but then pulled themselves together and tried to save the plane until the last seconds.
The pilots who flew the Tu-154, with whom journalists were able to talk, confirmed the conclusions of experts from the Ministry of Defense that the cause of the disaster could have been pilot error.
The commander of the ship is Volkov Roman Aleksandrovich and the assistant commander of the ship is Captain Rovensky Alexander Sergeevich
“In the Tupolev, the handles for retracting the landing gear and flaps are located on the canopy of the pilot’s cabin, between them, above the windshield. They can be confused, especially if the co-pilot sitting on the right, whose responsibilities include controlling the flaps and landing gear during takeoff, is tired. “The plane went into an extreme angle of attack, hit the water, and its tail fell off,” said Honored Pilot of the Russian Federation Viktor Sazhenin.
This version is considered acceptable by test pilot Hero of Russia Magomed Tolboev.
"On the control panel of the Tu-154, the flap and landing gear toggle switches are located above the windshield. The flaps are on the left, the landing gear is on the right. The co-pilot, who sits in the seat on the right, is responsible for them. It is possible that the pilot could have mixed up the levers or been distracted by something , so the plane took off with the landing gear extended and the flaps retracted,” he said, noting that one cannot exclude the possibility that after takeoff the crew exceeded the speed, which led to the destruction of the flap mechanism.
Another factor in the Tu-154 crash in Sochi could have been the lack of sufficient knowledge among the ship’s commander and co-pilot regarding actions in an extreme situation.
“Most likely, neither the plane’s commander, Roman Volkov, nor the co-pilot, Alexander Rovensky, who graduated from military schools in the early 2000s, underwent special flight training,” explained a representative of the commission investigating the accident in Sochi.
He stated that if the pilots had undergone special training for piloting in extreme situations at the Lipetsk Aviation Center for Retraining Military Pilots or at the Gromov Flight Research Institute, then perhaps the disaster could have been avoided.
“In the military schools that the pilots graduated from, they were hardly taught how, if the flaps malfunctioned at low altitudes, set them to reverse in order to bring the airliner out of the extreme angle of attack,” he said.
In turn, engineers at the Research Center for Operation and Repair of Aircraft of the Ministry of Defense in Lyubertsy do not rule out that when the crew tried to turn the aircraft around in order to reach the ground, the board would have been saved if not for the overload.
“The overload is evidenced by the fact that when the plane began to lose altitude, it was the tail section that hit the water first, which fell off, and then the plane’s right wing caught the water and crashed into the sea,” explained a source in the Russian Ministry of Transport.
At the same time, according to him, it cannot be ruled out that the luggage compartment was simply overloaded.
“After all, this was almost the last flight of a civilian aircraft to Syria, and relatives and colleagues of the military personnel on a business trip could have asked the airfield management and the crew to take extra people on board. And during the flight and after landing in Sochi, the cargo could have been shaken. During takeoff from Sochi, the cargo moved to the rear of the airliner, and the plane was pulled down due to an emergency situation with the flaps,” the expert noted.
As he wrote, the Russian Defense Ministry aircraft Tu-154 B-2 with tail number RA-85572 crashed in the Black Sea on December 25, 2016. There were 92 people on board. They all died.
