Country
code

Moscow oblast

Crash of an Airbus A321-211 in Moscow

Date & Time: Aug 15, 2019 at 0615 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
VQ-BOZ
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Moscow - Simferopol
MSN:
2117
YOM:
2003
Flight number:
U6178
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
7
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
226
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Circumstances:
Shortly after takeoff from Moscow-Zukhovski Airport runway 12, while climbing to an altitude of 750 feet in excellent weather conditions, the airplane collided with a flock of birds (sea gulls). Some of them were ingested by both engines that lost power. It was later reported by the crew that the left engine stopped almost immediately while the right engine lost power and run irregularly. Unable to maintain a positive rate of climb, the captain decided to attempt an emergency landing in a cornfield. The airplane belly landed approximately 3,5 km past the runway end and slid for dozen meters before coming to rest with its both engines partially torn off. All 233 occupants were able to evacuate the cabin and it is reported that 23 people were slightly injured.

Crash of a Sukhoi Superjet 100-95B in Moscow: 41 killed

Date & Time: May 5, 2019 at 1830 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RA-89098
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Moscow - Murmansk
MSN:
95135
YOM:
2017
Flight number:
SU1492
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
5
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
73
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
41
Circumstances:
The aircraft departed runway 24C at Moscow-Sheremetyevo Airport at 1803LT on a schedule service to Murmansk. Few minutes after takeoff, while climbing to an altitude of 10,000 feet, the crew encountered problems with the communication systems and informed ATC about an emergency situation via the transponder codes before returning to the airport. The crew completed a circuit then prepared for a landing on runway 24L. Upon touchdown, the airplane bounced then nosed down and landed a second time. On impact, the main landing gear collapsed and the airplane caught fire, slid for few hundred metres then veered off runway to the right and came to rest in flames. The aircraft was destroyed by fire. 37 occupants were evacuated while 41 people, among them a crew member, were killed.

Crash of an Antonov AN-148-100B in Argunovo: 71 killed

Date & Time: Feb 11, 2018 at 1427 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RA-61704
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
No
Site:
Schedule:
Moscow – Orsk
MSN:
27015040004
YOM:
2010
Flight number:
6W703
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
6
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
65
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
71
Captain / Total flying hours:
5039
Captain / Total hours on type:
1323.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
860
Copilot / Total hours on type:
720
Aircraft flight hours:
16249
Aircraft flight cycles:
8397
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft departed runway 14R at Moscow-Domodedovo Airport at 1421LT. Six minutes later, while climbing to an altitude of 6,000 feet in light snow showers, the airplane descended then disintegrated in a snow covered field located in Argunovo, about 37 km southeast of the Airport, one minute later. The aircraft was totally destroyed and debris were scattered on more than one km. All 71 occupants were killed. Both recording systems have been recovered. A day after the crash, Russian Authorities confirmed that the aircraft was intact until the final impact with the ground. Preliminary reports indicates speed variations on all three ASI's three minutes after rotation. 50 seconds after the automatic pilot was disconnected, the airplane experienced vertical loads between 0,5 and 1,5 G. then pitched down to an angle of 35°. Five seconds prior to impact, the airplane banked right to 25°. Preliminary investigations shows that the incorrect data on ASI's was caused by icing of the Pitot tubes as the heating systems was off, apparently because the crew failed to activate it.
Probable cause:
The accident was the consequence of erroneous actions on part of the crew while climbing in instrument meteorological conditions at unreliable readings of instrument speed caused by icing (blockage with ice) of all three Pitot tubes. This caused the aircraft to become uncontrollable, enter a dive and eventually collide with the ground. The accident was then considered as a loss of control in flight (LOC-I). The investigation revealed systemic weaknesses in the identification of hazards and risk control, the inoperability of the airline's flight safety management system and the lack of control over the level of training of crew members by aviation authorities at all levels, which led to the issuance of certificates of aviation personnel and the admission to the flights of the crew, which did not fully meet the qualification requirements. The following contributing factors were reported:
- Hurry of the crew in preparation for the flight due to the late arrival of the aircraft from the previous flight and attempts to "catch up" with the time,
- Skipping by the crew of the operation to switch on the Pitot tube heating before takeoff and failing to comply with the section of the check list "BEFORE TAKE-OFF", which provides for the control of this action,
- Design features of the An-148 aircraft in terms of the restrictions on the duration of Pitot tube heating operation on the ground, which led to the need to carry out operations to control the inclusion of Pitot tube heating and compliance with the principle of "dark cockpit" in a separate section of the "BEFORE THE FLIGHT" check list, which is performed immediately before the start of the takeoff run, which creates additional risks of missing these operations. These actions are provided in the section "ON THE RUNWAY START",
- Systematic failure of the airline's crews to comply with the "dark cockpit" principle and the requirements of the radar, which contributed to "getting used" to the takeoff with the presence of emergency and warning messages on the Integrated system and alarm indicator (KISS) and did not allow to identify the fact that the Pitot tube heating was not included. In the accident flight before takeoff, six warning messages were displayed on the KISS, including three messages about the absence of Pitot tube heating,
- Design features of the An-148 aircraft, connected with the impossibility to disable the display of a number of warning messages on the KISS even when performing the whole range of works provided for by the MMEL while ensuring the flight with delayed defects,
- Low safety culture in the airline, which was manifested in: systematic failure to record in the flight log the failures detected during the flight, as well as in the performance of flights with the failures not eliminated and/or not included in the list of delayed failures, accompanied by the corresponding messages on the KISS,
- Failure to take necessary measures in case of detection of previous facts of untimely activation of Pitot tube heating by crews based on the results of express analysis of flight information,
- Unreadiness of the crew to take actions in case of triggering the alarm "Speed of Emergency" due to the lack of appropriate theoretical training in the airline and the impossibility to work out this special situation on the flight simulation device and / or during airfield training and, as a consequence, failure to comply with the procedures provided for after triggering of this alarm,
- Absence of federal aviation regulations for certification of flight simulators, the development of which is provided for by the Air Code of the Russian Federation,
- Approval for the existing AN-148 flight simulators of the IFC Training LLC and the CTC of the Saint-Petersburg State University of Civil Aviation without taking into account their actual capabilities to reproduce special flight cases, as well as the provisions of FAR-128,
- Absence of specific values of flight parameters (engine operation mode, pitch and roll angles, etc.) in the aircraft's flight manual, which must be maintained by the crew of the airspeed alarm system, as well as absence of the situation with unreliable instrument speed readings (Unreliable Airspeed Procedure) in the list of special flight cases,
- Increased psycho-emotional tension of crew members at the final stage of the flight due to inability to understand the causes of speed fluctuations and, as a consequence, the captain falling under the influence of the "tunnel effect" with the formation of the dominating factor of speed control according to the "own" (left) airspeed indicator without a comprehensive assessment of flight parameters,
- Insufficient training of pilots in the field of human factor, methods of threat and error control and management of crew resources,
- Individual psychological peculiarities of pilots (for the captain - reduction of intellectual and behavioral flexibility, fixation on their own position with the inability (impossibility) to "hear" prompts from the second pilot; for the second pilot - violation of the organization and sequence of actions), which in a stressful situation in the absence of proper level of management of the crew resources came to the fore; loss of the captain's psychological performance (psychological stupor, psychological incapacitation), which resulted in complete loss of spatial orientation and did not allow reacting to correct prompts and actions of the co-pilot, including when triggering the PULL UP warning of the EGPWS system,
- Absence of psychological incapacitation criteria in the airline's AFM, which prevented the second pilot from taking more drastic measures,
- High annual leave arrears for special conditions, which could lead to fatigue and negatively affect the performance of the captain,
- Operation of the aircraft control system in the longitudinal channel in the reconfiguration mode with unreliable signals of instrument speed, not described in the operational documentation, related to a double increase in the transfer coefficient from the hand wheel to the steering wheel in the flight configuration and constant deviation of the steering wheel for diving (without deviation of the steering wheel) for about 60 seconds, which reduced the time required for the crew to recognize the situation.
Final Report:

Crash of a PZL-Mielec AN-2 in Chernoye: 2 killed

Date & Time: Sep 2, 2017
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RA-35171
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Chernoye - Chernoye
MSN:
1G113-10
YOM:
30
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
1
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Circumstances:
The pilot and his passenger were taking part to an airshow at Chernoye Aerodrome, celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Antonov AN-2. The pilot was completing a steep turn to the left to join the grassy runway when the airplane lost height and struck the ground with its left wing and crashed in flames. Both occupants were killed and the aircraft was totally destroyed.

Crash of a Dassault Falcon 50EX in Moscow-Vnukovo: 4 killed

Date & Time: Oct 20, 2014 at 2357 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
F-GLSA
Flight Phase:
Flight Type:
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Moscow - Paris
MSN:
348
YOM:
2006
Flight number:
LEA074P
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
3
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Captain / Total flying hours:
6624
Captain / Total hours on type:
1266.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
1478
Copilot / Total hours on type:
246
Aircraft flight hours:
2197
Aircraft flight cycles:
1186
Circumstances:
During the takeoff run on runway 06 at Moscow-Vnukovo Airport, the three engine aircraft hit a snowplow with its left wing. The aircraft went out of control, rolled over and came to rest upside down in flames. All four occupants were killed, three crew members and Mr. Christophe de Margerie, CEO of the French Oil Group Total, who was returning to France following a meeting with the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. At the time of the accident, the RVR on runway 06 was estimated at 350 meters due to foggy conditions. The pilot of the snow-clearing vehicle was slightly injured.
Probable cause:
The accident occurred at nighttime under foggy conditions while it was taking off after cleared by the controller due to collision with the snowplow that executed runway incursion and stopped on the runway. Most probably, the accident was caused by the combination of the following contributing factors:
- lack of guidance on loss of control over an airdrome vehicle and/or situational awareness on the airfield in pertinent documents defining the duties of airdrome service personnel (airdrome shift supervisor and vehicle drivers);
- insufficient efficiency of risk mitigation measures to prevent runway incursions in terms of airdrome peculiarilies that is two intersecling runways;
- lack of proper supervision from the airdrome service shift supervisor, alcohol detected in his organism, over the airfield operations: no report to the ATM or request to the snowplow driver as he lost visual contact with the snowplow;
- violation by the airdrome service shift supervisor of the procedure for airdrome vehicles operations, their entering the runway (RWY 2) out of operation (closed for takeoff and landing operations) without requesting and receiving clearance from the ground controller;
- violations by the medical personnel of Vnukovo AP of vehicle driver medical check requirements by performing formally (only exterior assessment) the mandatory medical check of drivers after the duty, which significantly increased the risk of drivers consuning alcohol during the duty. The measures and controls applied at Vnukovo Airport to mitigate the risk of airdrome drivers doing their duties under the influence of alcohol were not effective enough;
- no possibility for the snowplow drivers engaged in airfield operations (due to lack of pertinent equipment on the airdrome vehicles) to continuously listen to the radio exchange at the Departure Control frequency, which does not comply with the Interaction Procedure of the Airdrome Service with Vnukovo ATC Center.
- loss of situational awareness by the snowplow driver, alcohol detected in his organism, while perfonning airfield operations that led to runway incursion and stop on the runway in use.
His failure to contact the airdrome service shift supervisor or ATC controllers after situational awareness was lost;
- ineffective procedures that resulted in insufficiently trained personnel using the airfield surveillance and control subsystem A3000 of A-SMGCS at the Vnukovo ATC Center, for air traffic management;
- no recommendation in the SOP of ATM personnel of Vnukovo ATC Center on how to set up the airfield surveillance and control subsystem A3000, including activation and deactivation of the Reserved Lines and alerts (as a result, all alerts were de-activated at the departure controller and ground controller's working positions) as well as how to operate the system including attention allocation techniques during aircraft takeoff and actions to deal with the subsystem messages and alerts;
- the porting of the screen second input of the A3000 A-SMGCS at the ATC shift supervisor WP for the display of the weather information that is not envisaged by the operational manual of the airfield surveillance and control subsystem. When weather information is selected to be displayed the radar data and the light alerts (which were present during the accident takeoff) become un available for the specialist that occupies the ATC shift supervisor's working position;
- the ATC shift supervisor's decision to join the sectors at working positions of Ground and Departure Control without considering the actual level of personnel training and possibilities for them to use the information of the airfield surveillance and control system (the criteria for joining of sectors are not defined in the Job Description of ATC shift supervisor, in particular it does not take into account the technical impossibility to change settings of the airfield surveillance and control system);
- failure by the ground controller to comply with the SOPs, by not taking actions to prevent the incursion of RWY 2 that was closed for takeoff and landing operations by the vehicles though having radar information and alert on the screen of the airfield surveillance and control system;
- failure by the out of staff instructor controller and trainee controller (providing ATM under the supervision of the instructor controller) to detect two runway incursions by the snowplow on the runway in use, including after the aircrew had been cleared to take off (as the clearance was given, the runway was clear), provided there was pertinent radar information on the screen of the airfield surveillance and control subsystem and as a result failure to inform the crew about the obstacle on the runway;
- lack of recommendations at the time of the accident in the Operator's (Unijet) FOM for flight crews on actions when external threats appear (e.g. foreign objects on the runway) during the takeoff;
- the crew failing to take measures to reject takeoff as soon as the Captain mentioned «the car crossing the road». No decision to abort takeoff might have been caused by probable nonoptimal psycho-emotional status of the crew (the long wait for the departure at an unfamiliar airport and their desire to fly home as soon as possible), which might have made it difficult for them to assess the actual threat level as they noticed the snowplow after they had started the takeoff run;
- the design peculiarity of the Falcon 50EX aircraft (the nose wheel steering can only be controlled from the LH seat) resulting in necessity to transfer aircraft control at a high workload phase of the takeoff roll when the FO (seated right) performs the takeoff.
Final Report:

Ground fire of an Ilyushin II-96-300 in Moscow

Date & Time: Jun 3, 2014 at 1425 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RA-96010
Flight Phase:
Survivors:
Yes
MSN:
74393201007
YOM:
25
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
0
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Aircraft flight hours:
51427
Aircraft flight cycles:
7625
Circumstances:
The aircraft that was parked on the tarmac at Moscow-Sheremetyevo took fire at 1425LT. Fire bombers took more than one hour to extinguish the fire that destroyed all the cabin and the roof of the aircraft. Built in 1994, the four engine aircraft was stored since April and not in service anymore. The fire spread from the cockpit area for unknown reason.

Crash of a Tupolev TU-204-100V in Moscow: 5 killed

Date & Time: Dec 29, 2012 at 1633 LT
Type of aircraft:
Operator:
Registration:
RA-64047
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Pardubice - Moscow
MSN:
1450744864047
YOM:
2008
Flight number:
RWZ9268
Country:
Region:
Crew on board:
8
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
5
Captain / Total flying hours:
14975
Captain / Total hours on type:
3080.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
10222
Copilot / Total hours on type:
579
Aircraft flight hours:
8676
Aircraft flight cycles:
2484
Circumstances:
Crew was performing a ferry flight from Pardubice to Moscow-Vnukovo Airport. After landing on runway 19 in marginal weather conditions, aircraft did not stop on the remaining runway, overrun at high speed and collided with an embankment separating the airport with the M3 Highway. Aircraft broke in three parts and four crew were killed (captain, copilot, engineer and one stewardess). Four other flight attendants were seriously injured. At the time of the accident, wind was gusting to 29 knots and the ceiling was 2,400 feet. A day later, one of the stewardess died from her injuries. According to MAK, aircraft landed 900-1000 meters past the runway threshold. Despite the fact that crew applied brake, aircraft did not decelerate as expected. It overrun 32 seconds after touch down at a speed of 215 km/h before hitting an embankment located 320 meters further on at a speed of 190 km/h. The AOC of Red Wings has been suspended few days later and on 18JUN2013, Rosaviatsia renewed the AOC, so the company was again authorized to operate commercial flights.
Probable cause:
Misalignment of mechanism and locks of thrust reversers on both engines as well as inappropriate actions (inappropriate provisions in the flight crew operating manual) by the crew during the landing run that resulted in lack of effective braking overrunning the runway and colliding with obstacles at high speed (about 190 kph/102 knots), the destruction of the aircraft and loss of life.
Contributing factors were:
- lack of documentation in what sequence the adjustments and checks of the engine control system should be performed upon replacing the engine control system as well as lack of documentation of rigidity of the controls and thrust reverser locks. This factor only becomes relevant in a handling of the thrust reversers in violation of the flight crew operating manual.
- inconsistencies and contradictions in the maintenance manuals of the aircraft and engines.
- lack of a formal procedure for maintenance organisations engaged in replacing engine management systems (including control mechanism and thrust reverser locks) to provide feedback to the aircraft and engine manufacturer in a timely manner to eliminate defects.
- unstable approach and significant speed exceedance (45 kph/24 knots), that resulted in a prolonged flare, significantly increased landing distance (by about 950 meters), soft touchdown ( 1.12G) preventing simultaneous activation of left and right gear compressed signals and thus preventing automatic extension of spoilers and air brakes.
- lack of checks by the crew for extension of spoilers and air brakes
- lack of extending the spoilers manually
- violation of the flight crew operating manual by the crew with respect to the use of reverse thrust, evidenced by the application of maximum reverse thrust in one motion without pause at low reverse thrust and without checking whether the thrust reversers had deployed, which resulted in an increase of (forward) engine thrust.
- absence of a (combined) gear compressed signal (more than 5.5 tons of weight on each main landing gear) throughout the entire landing roll and the crew's failure to extend the spoilers manually resulted in the thrust reversers remaining stowed.
- poor cockpit resource management by the commander throughout the entire flight, which in the approach phase led to lack of monitoring of flight remaining within stabilized approach criteria and the runway overrun
- unsatisfactory organisation of flight operations and non-functional safety management system at the operator, unsatisfactory formal verification of qualification of flight instructors to conduct pilot proficiency verification, lack of proper monitoring of qualifications and flight operations by objective criteria by the operator made it impossible to identify and eliminate systemic weaknesses in pilot techniques including speed control on landing and use of thrust reversers.
- absence of periodic training of flight crew in reacting to scenarios involving the malfunction of landing gear switches requiring the manual extension of spoilers and speed brakes. The technical possibilities at the simulators do not permit to work such scenarios.
Source: AvHerald
Final Report: