The pilot is always guilty, or how plane crashes are investigated in Russia

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The anniversary of the superjet disaster at Sheremetyevo on May 5, 2019, the wife of the ship's commander, Denis Yevdokimov, Oksana, "celebrated" her own investigation of the tragedy that claimed the lives of four dozen passengers and a crew member. Today "NI" publishes the third part of her research.

Let me remind you that today aviation accidents and incidents are being investigated by the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (TFR). Today about the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation.

In the law enforcement sphere, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (TFR), in accordance with the law, must conduct its own independent investigation in order to determine the guilt of those involved in the disaster. The Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation checks the correctness and legality of the investigation carried out by the TFR and, if there are no violations, transfers the case to the court. And only the court determines guilt with a sentence.

Currently, the investigative actions on the results of the disaster have been completely completed and the case has been transferred to the court.

After any plane crash, the aviation authorities, as a rule, suspend the operation of this type of aircraft until the causes of the tragedy are finally clarified. This applies to both military and civil aviation. This does not happen only in exceptional cases, when there is an obvious piloting error. The Ministry of Transport did not find the reasons for stopping the SSJ-100, which indirectly indicates that the crew was a priori declared guilty of the crash.

This is exactly what the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation received. From the moment of the first interrogation, it became clear that the investigation intended to work out only one version - the pilot's error. The rest of the versions of the disaster run counter to the interests of the controlling, certification and, of course, the manufacturer.

The aviation incident has become clearly political in nature. And this is understandable, because we are so proud of our aviation industry, and we have no constructive mistakes and cannot be, but we need to sell planes. Moreover, as I understand it, the possibility of signing a contract with the UN was already considered somewhere in the distant future. Therefore, it was simply necessary to save the aircraft's reputation, and the pilot was promptly indicted and the case brought to court.

The first thing the TFR started with was the non-recognition of the aircraft as material evidence. That is, there is no “murder weapon” in the case. The plane does not appear in the criminal case. In my opinion, on this topic about the investigation of the TFR can be closed, in principle. They did not investigate the plane crash, they collected accusatory material against the commander, however, they even have all volumes signed not "on the investigation of the plane crash", but "on the charges of D. A. Evdokimov." - the difference is obvious. And there is no need to talk about an independent investigation at all, since it had already repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the IAC, contrary to the requirements of ICAO, entered into an agreement on cooperation with the TFR. It is this tandem that suggests that each side is interested in blaming the commander.

However, there is technical expertise, which suggests that the plane was in good working order before departure. How it was carried out is a question, there is no material evidence, but there is an examination. What happened to the plane after the lightning strike (more than 10 electrical impulses entered the plane, whereas usually there are 2-3 of them), how the on-board computers reacted to the controls, what failures and in what sequence progressed during descent and landing, etc. - no one began to find out. There are many technical questions about the aircraft. For example, a question to the aircraft hub units, which are responsible for all aircraft electronics. It is known that on the eve of departure they were installed on the plane. One of them is new, and the second is after renovation. Previously, it was operated in Mexico, failed and was sent to Russia for repairs. Where is the guarantee that it was he who did not cause the tragedy? Nobody carried out research on the plane.

Aviation experts, invited by the investigation as consultants during the investigation, tried to convey to the investigation the need for a thorough and impartial conduct of all examinations in order to establish the true causes of the incident. But as soon as the investigation realized that these people by their actions could really unravel the "tangle of problems", they were removed from the investigation and lost all interest in them.

A technical expert, attracted by the investigation, to establish the true causes of the disaster, prepared 60 questions that must be answered to identify the causes. The questions concerned the actions of the pilots, the technical condition of the aircraft, weather conditions during the flight, the adequacy of the actions of the airport services, the compliance of their regulations with international requirements. After the investigator had agreed with the higher management, there were only 6 questions left for the examination, and all of them were aimed at accusing the commander.

During the entire investigation, the husband was deliberately not changed the procedural status, thereby excluding the possibility of participation for him and his defense in investigative actions for conducting examinations, investigative experiments, etc.

Another interesting detail is that the investigation recognized the co-pilot as a victim. For professionals, this is nonsense. The crew on the plane always works together, even if one is piloting, the other is in contact, reads checklists, etc., etc., it is no coincidence that there is a two-member crew on the plane, each does his job in accordance with the airline's regulations. I see the co-pilot's conclusion from the case only in order to simplify the scheme of the commander's accusation, otherwise they would have to share responsibility, collect additional evidence, and this time. And the investigators did not have time.

Flight technical expertise, which was individually prepared by Yu. M. Sytnik, carried out in violation. It should be noted that, despite his merits, and he is a member of the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation on the development of general aviation and an Honored Pilot of the Russian Federation, he has never piloted an aircraft with fly-by-wire by analogy with Airbas and Boeing, the analogue of which is the SSJ-100, therefore he does not know its features, he finished his flight activity before the start of operation of the SSJ-100. His expertise is the paragraphs and phrases of the preliminary report of the IAC taken out of context, that is, almost plagiarism. The conclusion of the examination is that a rough landing of the aircraft led to the tragedy, while it does not refer to the airworthiness standards and schedules from the preliminary report. I also want to add that this is not his first examination on which the accusation of the crew is based.

On 02.10.2019, the husband was groundlessly charged under Part 3 of Art. 263 "Violation of the rules for the safety of traffic and the operation of air transport, which, by negligence, entailed the infliction of grievous harm to human health, the death of two or more persons." It is unfounded, because at the time of the presentation of the charge there were no results of all examinations, transcripts of the "black box", the final report of the IAC.

The head of the main department of forensic science of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant General Z. Lozhis, said that the passengers died from smoke and fire, and not from a blow. He clarified that hazardous substances entered the air not only during the combustion of fuel, but also in the lining of the plastic interior. Here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the passengers after a rough landing were all alive, death occurred for other reasons. But this did not affect the course of the investigation, although it is here that the causal relationship between the actions of the aircraft commander and the death of passengers ends.

The investigation was carried out in 5 months, in the shortest possible time, which is not typical for the investigation of such cases. In judicial practice, there have never been such transient cases of plane crashes. The preliminary investigation was never closed before the results of the IAC investigation.

The husband's lawyers filed more than 30 different petitions, including an appeal to the Head of the TFR with a petition to reopen the investigation, which was refused. Almost all applications were rejected.

I also want to note that all the charges against my husband are based on interrogations of employees of the aircraft manufacturer, although according to the law it is forbidden to involve interested persons in the investigation.

Along with the transfer of the criminal case, the lawyers sent a voluminous complaint to the Prosecutor General, who, at the time of the preliminary investigation, held the position of Deputy Head of the Investigative Committee.

Special attention should be paid here. I suppose that it was known in advance that the Deputy Head of the TFR would take the post of Prosecutor General in the future and would be able to send the case to court without problems and delays. That is, the one who conducted the preliminary investigation will identify violations at home? Absurd. Let me remind you once again that the criminal case is political, not aviation.

Neuralink will focus its brain implants on patients with disabilities in an effort to restore them to use their limbs.

“We hope that next year, after FDA approval, we will be able to use implants in our first humans - people with severe spinal cord injuries such as tetraplegic and quadriplegic,” said Elon Musk.

Musk's company isn't the first to go this far. In July 2021, neurotech startup Synchron received FDA clearance to begin testing its neural implants in paralyzed people.

It is impossible to deny the benefits that can be derived from the fact that a person will have access to limbs that are paralyzed. This is truly a remarkable achievement for human innovation. However, many are concerned about the ethical aspects of technology-human fusion if it goes beyond this area of application.

Many years ago, people believed that Ray Kurzweil did not have time to dine with his predictions that computers and humans - a singularity event - would eventually become reality. And yet we are here. As a result, this topic, often referred to as "transhumanism", has become the subject of heated debate.

Transhumanism is often described as:

"a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the improvement of the human condition through the development and widespread dissemination of sophisticated technologies that can significantly increase life expectancy, mood and cognitive abilities, and predicts the emergence of such technologies in the future."

Many are concerned that we lose sight of what it means to be human. But it is also true that many treat this concept on an all-or-nothing basis - either everything is bad or everything is good. But instead of just defending our positions, perhaps we can spark curiosity and listen to all sides.

Yuval Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humanity, discusses this issue in simple terms. He stated that technology is advancing at such a breakneck pace that very soon we will be developing people who will surpass the species we know today so much that they will become a completely new species.

“We will soon be able to rewire our bodies and brains, whether through genetic engineering or by directly connecting the brain to a computer. Or by creating completely inorganic entities or artificial intelligence - which is not at all based on an organic body and an organic brain. It's something that goes beyond just another kind."

Where this can lead, since the billionaires from Silicon Valley have the power to change the entire human race. Should they ask the rest of humanity if this is a good idea? Or should we just accept the fact that this is already happening?