Almost every two months there is a crash on our planet. passenger airliners, as a result of which people die, hundreds of passengers who trusted the airlines and simply wanted to fly from one corner globe to another. Of course, from a statistical point of view major plane crashes occur extremely rarely, because thousands of flights take place around the world every day, but despite this, it is necessary to minimize the threat to passengers, and for this it is important to take into account various circumstances that periodically remind themselves...

Germanwings plane crash. 150 innocent victims.

It is impossible not to pay attention to the last major plane crash that took the lives of 150 people. According to experts, the main reason for the plane crash was the human factor, in particular, this means the unintentional killing of passengers and crew members. As experts note, the fault was the actions of the co-pilot, who, according to some sources, locked himself in the cockpit, turned off the automatic piloting system and purposefully waited for the plane to crash.

They were quick to accuse the pilot of insanity, deliberate murder of one and a half hundred people, and other sins, however, no one paid attention to the fact that the pilot had been undergoing treatment from a psychiatrist for about a year and a half. It remains unclear for what exact reasons a person convicted of insanity was allowed to fly an aircraft, and now they are trying in every possible way to place the blame on him. In addition, there is no real evidence that the co-pilot locked himself in the cockpit, since there is no evidence that he was the one who turned off the automatic pilot system.

Previously, information also appeared that the plane was in poor technical condition, but the air carrier's management denies this in every possible way, citing the fact that they are very competent in this issue. However, it is necessary to take into account the fact that immediately after the plane crash, several Germanwings crews refused to fly for the same reasons, and the air carrier’s management did not interfere with them, apparently fearing publicity.

Be that as it may, the official conclusion will be given by experts in the near future, but it is unlikely that the final report will take into account the actions of the air carrier in the tragedy that occurred. All the incompetence and recklessness demonstrated by the German airline is unlikely to bring back the lives of the 150 people lost due to simple negligence, which is present in every case reviewed.

TransAsia plane crash. 43 lives lost.

A crash involving a TransAsia airliner occurred on February 4, 2015, while attempting to fly from Taipei to the Kinmen archipelago. There were 53 passengers and 5 crew members on board the aircraft, however, some time after takeoff, one of the plane’s engines failed, and when trying to turn the plane around to return to the airport of its departure, the second engine unexpectedly failed, depriving most of the people chances of salvation.

The reasons for the failure of two aircraft engines at once remain unknown, however, it was found out that literally a week before the plane crash, the plane underwent maintenance, which could be a key point in clarifying all the circumstances. Of course, the reason for everything could also be an accident, but given the fact that the real chance of an airplane getting into a plane crash is 1 in 100,000, the TransAsia plane completely exhausted them.

In this case, it is important to pay attention to the fact that, again, the predominant factor is human intervention, regardless of whether it was done by the pilot or the technicians servicing the aircraft. We often blame everything on airplanes that are designed by the best specialists, but we do not operate them properly, which is unacceptable and leads to avoidable human deaths.

43 people died in the fatal plane crash, 13 survived, however, despite the fact that about 2 months have passed since it happened, the true reasons have not been established.

Air Asia plane crash. 162 victims of bad weather.

As you know, the end of last year was marked by another very terrible plane crash. An Air Asia plane with 162 people on board was flying from Surabaya to Singapore, however, while flying over the Java Sea, it unexpectedly disappeared from air traffic controllers' radars.

Two days later, the fuselage of the plane was discovered by a search team at the bottom of the Java Sea and all the people on board were killed. It subsequently turned out that the aircraft commander, a few moments before the disappearance, notified the air traffic controller of his intention to change course and flight level due to thunderclouds approaching from the front. For an unknown reason, the air traffic controller refused to allow the flight to climb, and after another four minutes, the plane disappeared from the radar without sending a distress signal.

According to some information, the plane could have encountered severe turbulence or even been struck by lightning, as a result of which all its systems were turned off. From that moment on, all sorts of versions began to appear that the cause could have been unqualified actions of the crew or even a technical malfunction of the aircraft, however, very little attention was paid to the air traffic controller’s refusal to allow the aircraft to gain altitude. It is likely that if the plane had risen above the thunderclouds, the effects of bad weather could have been eliminated, and this applies to two reasons: lightning strike and turbulence.

If we analyze this disaster from the point of view of a special aircraft accident analyzer, we can see that when the plane attempted to pass through thunderclouds, the probability of an incident was 0.000922%, however, in the case of a climb, it could drop to 0.000375%, which is 2.5 times less, and quite possibly it could save lives.

Again, very characteristic of all this are the actions of the human factor, and in the person of the air traffic controller. Of course, he could use the prescribed instructions, but this does not mean that he was aware of the situation much better than the pilot.

From all of the above, we can conclude that if much attention is currently being paid to improving aircraft, then it is also necessary to improve the safety of air transportation among people. It is likely that in total this will help, if not completely eliminate plane crashes, then minimize them as much as possible.

Pray that this will never happen to you, your loved ones, and generally to all people again.

Plane crash in Boston

October, 1961. A plane flying to Philadelphia. Immediately after being lifted into the air, it crashed into Boston Harbor. Reason: a flock of starlings. There were so many birds that they hit three of the four engines. And they died. And along with them - 52 passengers of the airliner. Although rescuers quickly arrived at the crash site, almost no one was found alive.

Source: youtube.com

Another one terrible plane crash in Boston

The plane barely reached an altitude of 400 meters when it immediately crashed. Everyone died, including the hangar employee on whom the plane fell. Reason: overweight. Later, during the investigation, it turned out that the weight of each of the passengers exceeded the permissible limit by 5 kilos.

Source: wikipedia.org

Plane crash in Kuibyshev

November, 1987. The Aeroflot airliner was flying from Magnitogorsk to Grozny via Kuibyshev. Before landing in Kuibyshev, the senior pilot decided to show off his skills to the young and inexperienced crew. He said that he could land this flying can of food without visibility, just using instruments. I argued with them.

As a result, I covered all the windows with special metal curtains, and let’s sit down. The plane was landing at an unacceptably high speed. As a result, the chassis could not stand it and broke. The liner broke into two parts. A fire started. 70 people died.

Source: wikipedia.org

Once upon a time in Europe

January, 1997. Flight from Puerto Plata to Frankfurt am Main. Before takeoff, the plane underwent a thorough check, everything was ok. We took to the sky, and then the bugs started:

• autopilot failed;
• the instruments on the commander's panel and on the co-pilot's panel showed completely different data.

The crew tried to straighten the plane's brains and control it manually. Failed. Result: collapsed to the ground, 190 deaths. During the study, the cause was established - wasps: insects built a nest for themselves in a device for measuring flight speed and dynamic pressure.

Plane crash in Isparta

Isparta is a city in western Turkey. October, 1977. Flight from Istanbul to Antalya. The chief pilot asked the co-pilot to monitor the situation while he went into the cabin for a minute. The co-pilot agreed. As soon as the captain left the cockpit, the co-pilot saw in front of him runway. I contacted the dispatchers. They forbade us to land the plane and generally said that there was no landing strip there.

The second Turkish pilot freaked out, saying, I see with my own eyes what is there, and here you are telling me. And he began to land the plane.

The captain was shocked when he returned: the co-pilot was trying to land the plane on the highway in Isparta, 220 km from Antalya. He immediately tried to correct the situation by pulling the steering wheel towards himself. The plane trembled, caught on a hillock, and disintegrated. No one survived.

Plane crash in Congo

There are small airplanes serving passenger “transportation” within the country. Most of these are in the USA and, oddly enough, in Africa. One of the strangest plane crashes happened in Africa. Namely: 2011, plane, flight, everyone is flying quietly and peacefully. Nobody is touching anyone. And then a crocodile crawls out of the luggage.

The violent reaction of the passengers led to the plane crash: everyone rushed to the cockpit → the plane nosed forward. Only one person survived, and that same crocodile.

Verdict: It’s a shame that African airports don’t check luggage before loading it on board.

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 yours. last hope when the situation becomes catastrophic. 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 his 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 results in 20% losses aircraft, despite improved production quality and updated design. 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 runway airport, 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, jet aircraft faced a new threat with the introduction of high flying. 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 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 aviation 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 sort it out 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 aircraft manufactured both 50 and 70 years ago is safe in itself if it meets the requirements flight safety. 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 has been declining lately. 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 for self-training. 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 major airlines Boeings take off like Tupolev, slowly and 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’m 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, it 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 random thing 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 on its way to 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 thrust. 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. Because civil Aviation does not exist in a vacuum, but in our country everything is permeated with corruption, then it also explains why our planes are crashing: because someone paid and supplied the wrong part that was needed. 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.

Today, air travel has become so popular that airplanes in terms of frequency of use for tourists are equal to cars and trains. However, air travel seems very dangerous and not entirely reliable to many. Is this really true, how do our ideas about the dangers of air travel compare with statistics and how often do planes crash?

Choosing transport for travel

During the period of long-awaited vacations and long holidays, many are faced with the problem of choosing travel abroad to hot beaches or snowy ones ski resorts. And it is complex, because many factors need to be correlated, such as ease of movement, the price tag for the trip itself and, most importantly, safety. Let's look at statistical studies and find out how often planes crash and whether the scale of this is really as fatal as people think.

Are trains safer - misconception or not?

According to statistical studies, the most in a safe way People's mode of transportation is the train. The train has a slightly higher rating. Airplanes do not inspire confidence among the world's population at all. Only sixteen percent of respondents believe in their complete reliability. If we take cars into account, their safety rating is generally low, because they are initially considered very dangerous for driving over long distances.

However, in the struggle between different modes of transport in terms of reliability, everything is not so simple. Airplanes, according to many years of research by air crash experts and statistical studies, are rightfully recognized. However, people, even despite official scientific confirmation, still do not trust them. Why is this happening? Maybe the news that a plane has crashed somewhere really frightens tourists? Let's understand the situation.

The plane is not safe?!

Although statistics is an exact science, the final result depends very much on the calculation method. When determining the level of aircraft safety, the number of tragic events per total number of flight kilometers is taken. It is this type of calculation that is mainly used by statisticians, and it is its results that are published in official sources.

The whole secret lies in the fact that most disasters occur during takeoffs and landings. On the way, plane crashes are much less common. But this method of calculation is very beneficial for transport companies, and they very often use it so as not to discourage tourists from choosing air travel for travel. Nevertheless, such an indicator as those killed in a plane crash (their number) during accidents during takeoff and landing is acquiring very large proportions.

If we take into account the calculation of tragic cases per total mileage of movement, then the most dangerous types of movement will be two types of movement - motorcycle and walking. One has only to look at the summary of tragic moments in any city and you can see that a lot of pedestrians die, even more than motorcyclists.

If you study other methods of statistical research, then the plane will give way to the train in terms of safety. For example, in terms of the number of passenger deaths per number of trips and speed of travel, air travel is the most unfavorable.

When considering other research methods, it turns out that trains are the best choice for travel. So it’s not without reason that tourists are in a fever from the mere news that a plane has crashed, and the trip railway rightfully has a safety advantage in people's minds.

Rating of the safest airlines

Be that as it may, you will still have to fly, since there are resorts that simply cannot be reached by any other type of transport, but you really want to. Despite the bad forecasts, negative reviews and gloomy opinions, our country is still not the weakest in terms of air travel safety. But the United States has been a leader in plane crashes for quite a long period of time. If we build a ranking by countries that own aircraft, we can say that the first five include Finland, New Zealand, Hong Kong and UAE. It is the companies of these five that are worth flying, and then no plane crash will be terrible. Russia, in this ranking, is in sixteenth place with the company Transaero.

Causes of plane crashes

Why do planes crash? Before choosing an airline, tourists first of all give preference to companies with the “youngest” modes of transport in terms of service life. However, this is not at all supported by statistical data. According to them, in Russia the company with the most unworn transport fleet is Aeroflot. Its aircraft are less than five years old. However, Finland, which occupies a leading position in flight safety and a small number of plane crashes, has had its aircraft in operation for more than nine years.

This fact indicates that an aircraft crash due to wear and tear and service life is unlikely. By choosing an airline based on the criterion of its small transport, the likelihood of a crash does not decrease at all. If we look at the statistics, we can see that a greater number of plane crashes occur due to the human factor, and there is no escape from this.

How to overcome your fear of flying, because there are situations when traveling by plane simply cannot be avoided. Psychologists give good advice on this matter. If fear is caused by any mental disorders, be it panic attacks or fear of a small enclosed space, then these are the problems that need to be solved.

However, in many cases, fear is caused by a lack of complete personal control over the situation and the safety of the flight. This must be accepted as inevitable, because any movement by transport depends little on us. Therefore, when traveling by air, it is recommended to simply relax and take your mind off bad thoughts by watching a movie on your tablet or listening to pleasant music. Never use alcohol to relieve stress. In fact, if it dulls the nervous state, it will only be for a short time, and then the problem will only get worse. The fear of flying needs to be addressed first of all with yourself. There is no need to simply get on your nerves, taking into account the information from news channels about how often planes crash, but you just need to calm down and try to take control of your emotions.

Which planes have the most accidents?

If we look at global statistics, Boeing can be considered the most unreliable, the second in the number of crashes is An, and the IL is in third place. If we turn to Russian research, we can see that the most “falling” in our country will be “An”. Why do planes crash? In 2005 alone, as many as nine cars of this brand crashed in Russia. In the world, they account for nineteen percent of all disasters.

The causes of plane crashes in Russia are explained by journalists in one key - the outdated transport fleet of domestic companies. Is this really true and how often do planes crash for this reason?

Causes of Russian plane crashes

In general, the aging of aircraft is expressed not in the number of years that have passed since its production, but in the amount of hours flown and the general technical condition. According to statistics, Russia has aircraft dating back to Soviet times, and their percentage is much higher than foreign-made units. However, you should not look at age. Compared to foreign ships, domestic ones flew much fewer hours, and Soviet production quality was one of the best in the world.

For what reason then does Russia purchase foreign aircraft for a lot of money when it has its own quite reliable aircraft? An example is the Tu aircraft. They have excellent flight safety statistics, and pilots consider them to be the most convenient in terms of technical design.

One of the reasons is the fact that Tu aircraft are very expensive in terms of the amount of fuel they consume. And since air travel has long become a separate type of business, company directors, in pursuit of reducing the cost of servicing their fleet of aircraft, give preference to foreign airliners, which are much more economical than their Russian counterparts.

Another reason is the decline of aircraft. The technologies for their production are significantly outdated, investments in aircraft factories are not being carried out. Therefore, our country cannot compete with more advanced foreign units.

How to save the situation?

In Russia, in order to stabilize the situation with the aircraft production market, the President signed a Decree on the creation of the United Aircraft Corporation. Moreover, investments in aircraft factories amounting to ten billion dollars were planned. This happened back in 2006. Currently the situation has not improved at all. The process of forming the corporation was greatly slowed down and, according to journalists, the purpose of its creation was not to study the competitor market, but to unite all the assets of Russian airlines in one place.

Nevertheless, there are positive developments. The Ilyushin Finance company purchased Il and Tu aircraft from Russia. The Tashkent production association has concluded an agreement with the St. Petersburg airline for the supply of Il aircraft to Russia, most of which will be Russian-built.

What you need to know about a plane crash?

No one is safe from an aircraft crash. However, if you have the necessary information about what happens when a plane crashes, you have a chance of surviving the crash. In the nineties, there was an accident with the B-707 airliner. The death toll in the plane crash numbered in the hundreds. However, five passengers used the information from the flight attendant's instructions and survived.

In some cases, there is a chance to be saved if you have the necessary knowledge. They are not as useless as they seem at first glance. Knowing what happens when a plane crashes, you can apply many effective methods for your own safety.

The main ways to protect yourself, as the statistics of plane crashes show us, is to follow safety precautions. First of all, it is necessary, if possible, to remain in shoes and clothing. This will provide protection in case of fire. Remove all foreign objects from your clothing pockets and fasten your seat belt tightly. It is allowed to be removed only after a special command from the flight attendant.

Immediately before an accident, if possible, you need to take a protective position - you need to bend as low as possible and clasp your hands very tightly under your knees. The head should be placed on them, and if this cannot be done, then lower it as far as possible. Your feet should rest as firmly as possible on the floor. This technique, and it is fully proven by the statistics of plane crashes, often saves the lives of passengers in a plane crash.

Finally

As you can see, flying is not such a scary thing. The main thing is to use tickets for flights only from time-tested airlines that have had a small number of accidents, and also to comply with the safety requirements for aircraft passengers, so that later experts do not have to study the crashing plane on which you flew to rest in a warm country. Safe flights and successful landings and takeoffs!