Why has domestic civil aviation still not landed?

58
Why has domestic civil aviation still not landed?


The flight continues


Everyone remembers the spring of 2022, when Western technology companies declared real war on Russia. A lot of everything was banned - from commonplace smartphones to the supply of spare parts for passenger aircraft.



Experts of various persuasions frightened us with tales, one more terrible than the other. One “analyst” on a completely respectable resource at the beginning of the summer of 2022 predicted a total stop of agricultural machinery by the fall. They say that the lack of imported spare parts will lead to the fact that Russians all over the world will go to reap grain with sickles.

Not to mention the notorious combines, most of the aircraft remain in service. There were generally terrible rumors about them.

First we remembered the term cannibalism as applied to technology. Experts predicted that in 2023-2024, half of the aircraft fleet will remain on the ground in order to donate their entrails to the other half. Difficult times require difficult decisions, what can you do.

But there were even more tragic predictions.

It's about a series aviation accidents and even disasters. The reality, to put it mildly, turned out to be completely different. Fortunately. But in the West they are not calming down in propaganda hysteria.

In February, The Wall Street Journal wrote about a twofold increase in the number of accidents in Russian aviation. The Americans counted 74 events at once and tried to convince readers that it was the sanctions that caused the malfunction. Many of which are critical - journalists wrote about the failure of aircraft engines and control systems. News It was instantly replicated all over the world, and in Russia it acquired a special flavor.

In fact, there was no even statistically significant increase in the number of aircraft accidents. Not to mention the cases that could be noticed without the mathematical apparatus. But negative news, even fake, tends to spread quickly and take root in people’s heads for a long time.


The situation in the domestic air navy It cannot be called simple, but it is also very far from catastrophe. The airworthiness of aircraft can be maintained, albeit with considerable effort. So far it has been successful, it should be noted. No one knows what will happen in five or six years and beyond.

One of the main reasons why the West failed to strangle air travel was globalization, damn it. The Airbus-Boeing duopoly has delegated the production of components to so many contractors that it is not always possible to track the journeys of individual components. Of course, Pratt & Whitney will not sell the assembled aircraft engine to Russia, but it is quite possible to arrange the supply of spare parts. Through third countries, for example.

The biggest difficulties, oddly enough, arose with the domestic SSJ-100 airliners.

The car consists of 70 percent imported components, and not simple ones, but quite unique ones. The Franco-Russian aircraft engine PowerJet SaM146 alone is worth something. As soon as third parties place an order for spare parts for an engine or other unique spare parts, the seller immediately becomes tense - will they end up going to Russia? It’s fine, let them fly for their health, but no one is ready to endure secondary sanctions.

An even more critical situation has developed in S7.

This office was unlucky - they thoroughly purchased imported Airbus A321neo with very capricious Pratt & Whitney engines. The products require difficult maintenance, which ultimately forced the carrier to ground all aircraft in the series. Let us note that it should not be lifted into the air with passengers, regardless of the prohibitions, but rather left in the pits until better times. Of the 39 aircraft in the series, 13 aircraft do not fly.

It is worth noting separately that all three serious accidents with the A321neo over the past couple of years did not happen in Russia. One each in Guinea, Peru and Singapore. The events were not always caused by technical faults, but the fact remains that incidents were recorded abroad.

Airbus and Boeing vs.


There is every reason to suspect that Airbus and Boeing are interested in supplying spare parts to Russia through gray channels and through third countries.

Firstly, whatever one may say, there are several hundred aircraft in service, and you can make good money on this.

Secondly, mass deaths in plane crashes will not only cause irreparable damage to Russia, but will also affect the reputation of the duopoly. Last minute Airbus and Boeing are not the best advertising on the international market. Marketers understand this very well and, it seems, they were able to convince managers not to block the supply of units to Russia.

According to air carriers, any spare part can now be obtained through friendly countries. Only the waiting time increased from 24 hours to a week or more. Of course, the cost of orders has also increased - the premium for the “gray scheme” ranges from 15 to 70 percent. It was the time lag that forced airlines to look for donors of components among airworthy aircraft.

But the system adapted quickly enough, and now donor downtime is either completely eliminated or reduced to a minimum. All friendly countries, from the United Arab Emirates to Kyrgyzstan, are ready to make money on the increasingly complex logistics in Russia. If you carefully analyze the flow of aircraft spare parts in recent years, then supply volumes have certainly increased over the past couple of years. This is probably why the states are still friendly, since they allow themselves to profit so much from Russian problems.


Special thanks can be said to Iran, which shared not only the supply channels for scarce spare parts, but also took direct part in the repairs. Last spring, an Airbus A330-300 arrived in Tehran, on which the Iranians carried out a planned restoration of the landing gear. This is only information available to the general public - one can only guess how much repair work the Iranians actually do on their land.

It is gratifying that state aviation regulators, in order to increase the “life expectancy” of aircraft, did not soften safety requirements. No one is ready to take responsibility for hundreds, or even thousands of lives with one stroke of a pen.

Unfortunately, this is not the case everywhere. For example, in the automotive industry, at a time of acute shortage of electronic components, they generously allowed not to install ABS systems on new cars, as well as ERA-Glonass receivers, which directly affect safety and survivability. Now the situation has leveled out, but thousands of under-equipped cars are driving around the country.

Not so in aviation. At least for now.

Despite the benevolent tone of all of the above, it is still premature to express joy.

Yes, civil transportation in Russia has not ceased to be safe, and the last two years are proof of this. At the same time, the costs of operators to maintain aircraft in airworthiness have increased, and with them, ticket prices. Airlines have found workarounds with supplies and repairs, but this does not eliminate the problems ahead.

If you do not radically change the safety rules in the sky, then the first batch of aircraft will have to be laid up in five to six years. The volume and cost of servicing old aircraft will not allow airlines to make money on them. In extreme cases, aircraft simply will not be able to fly without risks to passengers - airworthiness requirements, as we know, are written in blood.

And now the main question is: will domestic aircraft factories be able to organize serial and rhythmic production of their own aircraft by that time?

Given recent shifts in production timing to the right by a couple of years, the answer is far from obvious.
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    24 March 2024 04: 46
    Ask the guarantor. He knows. Since 2012.
    1. +4
      24 March 2024 04: 50
      It guarantees a warranty with a 4-year warranty.
      1. +3
        24 March 2024 05: 04
        Quote from: FoBoss_VM
        He guarantees a guarantee

        All in 2030! We're waiting...
      2. +10
        24 March 2024 05: 17
        Quote from: FoBoss_VM
        It guarantees a warranty with a 4-year warranty.

        Hmmmm! Like 6 years now hi
      3. -1
        25 March 2024 09: 42
        It's already six o'clock. hi "" ""
  2. +24
    24 March 2024 05: 08
    They sell spare parts for airplanes so that we don’t suddenly lose energy on our domestic aviation. And then suddenly these Russians will start offering aircraft manufacturers salaries of 300-500 thousand, people will rush to learn aerodynamics and strength of materials, they will also start riveting hundreds of airplanes for themselves, and then for export! No, competitors are not needed, sell spare parts at triple the price, hint that in another year we will start business as usual.
    Bill Gates once said why he doesn’t really fight Windows pirates. So that people get used to Windows, so that it’s the only thing everywhere, and then they’ll buy it. And there are almost no competitors left. Linux, it seems, has pests on its staff, which makes it unbearably painful to use
    1. +7
      24 March 2024 05: 57
      Quote from alexoff
      Bill Gates once said why he doesn't really fight Windows pirates
      Other software developers followed the same idea. They turned a blind eye to pirated copies, and in the end it all brought results
    2. -1
      24 March 2024 06: 08
      Quote from alexoff
      Bill Gates once said why he doesn’t really fight Windows pirates. So that people get used to Windows, so that it’s the only thing everywhere, and then they’ll buy it. And there are almost no competitors left. Linux, it seems, has pests on its staff, which makes it unbearably painful to use

      Linux is free, services are paid. Those. If you do everything yourself, then it’s free, if you don’t understand something, then you have to pay. With Windows, both the system and services are paid. I remember about 25 years ago, someone wrote that he bought an office for a company and found a mistake there and corresponded with small softies for 6 months, so they kept feeding him with promises. At the end of the type there will be a new update and we will fix everything there. Several years have passed. They didn't fix it.

      In Linux, therefore, it’s more honest, set it up, it works, get money. Therefore, the specialists there are better and the salaries are many times higher.
      1. +3
        24 March 2024 13: 26
        Windows is generally free, it will just show an annoying message that the license has expired. There are a lot of applications from small soft ones, their quality is so-so, but there are a bunch of free applications.
        But Linux doesn’t even have normal builds ready-made, you have to constantly tinker, configure, adjust, drivers don’t fit right, a bunch of applications are either missing or don’t work properly. And why this torment if there is no significant profit, but KMSAuto is?
        1. -2
          25 March 2024 07: 45
          Who told you such nonsense that Windows is free? If you pirate it and use it at home, this does not mean that you will not be fined for it at work. And the fact that you call Linux distributions assemblies only shows that you haven’t seen it, or seen it from someone from afar.
          1. +2
            25 March 2024 12: 52
            Quote: ZAV69
            If you pirate it and use it at home, this does not mean that you will not be fined for it at work.

            Windows is downloaded for free from the Melkomyagk website, it works quite well after installation. There will be an eternal inscription that it is not activated, that’s all. And who will fine? In which country?
            Quote: ZAV69
            If you pirate it and use it at home, this does not mean that you will not be fined for it at work.

            The fact that nowadays Linux has lost popularity is a fact that without long belts with a tambourine, all these mints and enormously different assemblies and distributions work poorly, everyone who tried to install it knows.
    3. +1
      24 March 2024 08: 24
      Quote from alexoff

      They sell spare parts for airplanes so that we don’t suddenly lose energy on our domestic aviation. What if these Russians suddenly start

      That's right. Even the landing gear was repaired in Iran. Also, so that they don’t learn themselves.
      1. +1
        24 March 2024 15: 06
        Didn't learn what? Make a chassis and maintain it? These foreign aircraft have many Russian-made parts in their chassis. But to organize the production of spare parts for foreign cars and service (with mandatory certification), there is apparently no time and additional production capabilities - even there is not enough to create new domestic ones, including because of the SVO (priority for the defense industry).
  3. +15
    24 March 2024 05: 29
    Well, there was an article recently, the author there more or less competently described the prospects for the domestic aircraft industry. Taking into account this article, where the author claims that spare parts can be obtained, but at the same time it turns out to be a little more expensive and a little longer, we can say that in the end one cannot dream of any breakthrough in the domestic aircraft industry, much less thousands of aircraft by 2030 .
    In 2030, the person who promised this will already be working in another direction or on an honorable pension. How many of these “promisers” have changed in 24 years.
    1. +3
      24 March 2024 15: 13
      I also doubt that a thousand domestic civil aircraft will be ready by 2030. But I have no doubt that they will be somewhat later, unless there is something like a world war with nuclear strikes. Now there are more than 16 Superjets and 12 MS-21s in stock, and there is a lot of stock for components for the next ones. Do you think they will all throw it away and cut it up? Will factories and design bureaus be closed and people outside?
      1. +1
        24 March 2024 15: 35
        No, they won’t give up, but it’s unlikely they’ll be able to build at this rate in the next ten years. Perhaps they will master 500 and then they will count everything from small aircraft to large airliners.
        1. +2
          24 March 2024 15: 48
          Maybe. But that won't be bad either. And we have almost no small aircraft. Things are progressing in aviation, astronautics, and microelectronics, but, of course, not as quickly and easily as we would like. And, for example, just replacing an administrative resource (where else could you get a replacement?) won’t speed things up much
  4. +1
    24 March 2024 05: 50
    They can’t.
    Because they are idiots.
  5. +6
    24 March 2024 05: 55
    The biggest difficulties, oddly enough, arose with the domestic SSJ-100 airliners
    A “domestic” aircraft, consisting of 70% imported components, is good!
    1. +4
      24 March 2024 11: 14
      Stas 157, what % is Embraer Brazilian? Engines and avionics are American, there are Italian components. But no one says that the Embraer is not a Brazilian plane.
      1. +3
        24 March 2024 13: 06
        Why point to Brazil? Brazil is not subject to sanctions and is not opposed to half the world.
  6. +5
    24 March 2024 06: 25
    . Why has domestic civil aviation still not landed?

    Gray import of spare parts, Iranian repairs and, finally, Chinese spare parts. The Chinese were able to import many aircraft spare parts even without a government import substitution program.
  7. 0
    24 March 2024 06: 26
    And now the main question is: will domestic aircraft factories be able to organize serial and rhythmic production of their own aircraft by that time?

    Given recent shifts in production timing to the right by a couple of years, the answer is far from obvious.
    . “destroyers” - we found a lot of them, alas, and we still have them....
    There are creators... too, but not as many as necessary.
  8. +6
    24 March 2024 06: 43
    In our domestic conditions, I would compare civil aviation with the passenger car industry. If you produce old car models, nothing terrible will happen, maybe it will only somehow affect safety and efficiency. In our conditions, it is better to produce obsolete equipment than not to produce it at all.
    1. 0
      24 March 2024 17: 31
      This is where you are wrong. Something terrible is going to happen. “Old” models, such as the Tu-154 (as well as its Western contemporaries Boeing 737 and 747) had, according to current ideas, a simply terrifying accident rate. Only starting with the models and modifications of the 80-90s, there was a sudden increase in reliability. So we can only consider a relatively new generation, such as the Tu-204, Tu-334, but it will still definitely have a much worse accident rate compared to modern models. Even if they swear to us that there will be modernization that meets the very best international standards. Simply because if we cannot ensure mass production of modern components for the very, very modern Superjet and MC21, then they obviously will not appear on older models, but will be installed on a “whatever is possible” principle.
      1. +1
        24 March 2024 19: 51
        Honestly, my belief is that the simpler the technology, the more reliable it is. Old equipment has accident statistics simply because the total number of flights is huge. At the same time, old aircraft models can be improved. Why aren't older models being produced now? Because the production of new models brings big profits.
        1. 0
          25 March 2024 22: 50
          Quote from pavel.tipingmail.com
          Honestly, my belief is that the simpler the technology, the more reliable it is.

          This maxim contradicts objective reality. Compare the reliability of the Wright brothers' airplane and the A320. It’s just that the incomparably more complex Airbus is incomparably more reliable. And even the amendment to the maxim that “at a comparable level of technology” does not really improve the situation. For some IL-114 is clearly simpler than the A320, but somehow this has never helped it.
      2. Alf
        +1
        24 March 2024 20: 04
        Quote: Passing by
        “Old” models, such as the Tu-154 (as well as its Western contemporaries Boeing 737 and 747) had, according to current ideas, a simply terrifying accident rate.

        Can you give the accident rate for one flight?
        1. 0
          25 March 2024 22: 24
          Of course I can’t fly out, it’s not publicly available. I made such a plate a long time ago, the data is pretty outdated, but the patterns are visible.
          http://forumimage.ru/uploads/20090617/12452514682671247.gif
          New data here:
          https://aviation-safety.net/asndb/types/CJ
          The number produced was taken from Wikipedia.
          1) Tu-154 produced 1026, lost 71 aircraft, killed 3078 people. Aircraft loss percentage 6,9%
          2) Il-86 produced 106, lost 3 aircraft (let’s give it a head start and subtract from 4 one destroyed by external influences), 14 people died. Aircraft loss percentage 2,8%
          3) Boeing 747 produced 1574, lost 63 aircraft, killed 3746 people. Aircraft loss percentage 4,0%
          4) A318/A319/A320/A321 family 11263 produced, 48 aircraft lost, 1494 people killed. Aircraft loss percentage 0,4%
          5) Boeing 777 produced 1727, lost 8 aircraft, killed 541 people. Aircraft loss percentage 0,46%
          1. Alf
            0
            26 March 2024 18: 16
            As far as I know, the accident rate is judged precisely by the number of flights to a disaster.
          2. 0
            April 14 2024 13: 08
            It is also important to make allowances for how many aircraft dropped out due to external influences. By the way, 86 IL-2s were lost, not 3.
      3. +1
        24 March 2024 21: 15
        “Old” models, such as the Tu-154 (as well as its Western contemporaries Boeing 737 and 747) had, according to current ideas, a simply terrifying accident rate.

        IL-86 - not a single accident with passengers.
        1. 0
          25 March 2024 22: 38
          IMHO, he doesn’t stand out in any way special compared to his peers. The accident rate is quite at the level of those years, huge (see posts above). And the fact that there were abnormally few victims was simply luck. The total number of flights was too small, so the statistics with probability do not work as they should. This is my hypothesis. I do not have data on the number of flights made.
          1. 0
            25 March 2024 23: 34
            He doesn’t stand out in any way special compared to his peers.

            Stands out.
            Tu-154 and Il-86 are fundamentally different vehicles in terms of redundancy levels. See technical description.
            1. 0
              26 March 2024 08: 38
              Are there places on the Internet where such analysis is available? Share, I’ll know.
              IMHO the sudden increase in accident-free behavior is not at all associated with an increase in the level of redundancy.
              Redundancy cannot be 100%, for an aircraft this is technically impractical, and the main things that could be duplicated (such as engines, electrical, hydraulic and fuel systems) were duplicated long before the IL-86, and if the IL-86 was duplicated by a higher percentage , then this could not give an abrupt increase in reliability, because the main increase in this factor had already occurred earlier. And besides, the very share of technical problems in aircraft accidents is 20-30%, which reduces the contribution of the increase in duplication to the overall accident-free rate.
              IMHO, the general jump in accident-free behavior is connected with exactly one thing - the digital revolution.
              Firstly, thanks to it, there was a very significant increase in the service life and reliability of equipment and units (CAD in design, CAM in manufacturing + transition to CNC machining centers).
              Secondly, thanks to digital aircraft control systems (such as EDSU for aircraft control and fadec for engine control), the influence of the human factor has sharply decreased. And the human factor is the cause of 50% of plane crashes.
              1. 0
                26 March 2024 17: 35
                There are probably those on the Internet. aircraft descriptions. I read on paper a quarter of a century ago.
                On the IL-86, many systems are redundant four times.
                The digital revolution is not a panacea; there is still a person behind the CAD. And the level of engineering literacy has sharply declined over the past decades.
                And the human factor is the cause of 50% of plane crashes.

                That is, if the “human factor” is completely eliminated, then the accident rate will be reduced by half, and not by an order of magnitude.
  9. +6
    24 March 2024 06: 48
    Quote: Stas157
    Why has domestic civil aviation still not landed?

    It didn’t land because they bought quite a lot of foreign aircraft earlier. Yes, and they “appropriated” new ones, leased. We will hold out for a long time. They will begin to “damage” individual aircraft and remove components. But there is no particular hope for the domestic aircraft industry. request hi
  10. +5
    24 March 2024 09: 07
    Firstly, whatever one may say, there are several hundred aircraft in service, and you can make good money on this.

    Secondly, mass deaths in plane crashes will not only cause irreparable damage to Russia, but will also affect the reputation of the duopoly. Last minute Airbus and Boeing are not the best advertising on the international market.
    Firstly, why introduce sanctions at all if you can make money?
    Secondly, burning Airbus and Boeing, as a result of handicraft maintenance and the use of spare parts of unknown content, are the best advertising for purchase and service from the official manufacturer.
    It seems that the author too - well, your snips and wheezes fly. And most importantly, no documents. The Yankees counted 74 incidents - bullshit, bullshit. The Iranians themselves have big problems with their civilian aircraft fleet - they made the landing gear for us. We receive aircraft parts (of dubious quality) through third countries. The figure about 5-6 years came from somewhere. Why not 5-6 months, for example?!
    So, as an epilogue to the article, I would insert the phrase of the ancients - “I believe because it is absurd”
  11. BAI
    0
    24 March 2024 09: 21
    Oh, and recently there was an article - everything disappeared. From another author
  12. +2
    24 March 2024 09: 39
    I would love to read a discussion about the landing between you know who lives near the VASO checkpoints and this author. Who will have the truth?
  13. 0
    24 March 2024 11: 01
    As long as spare parts and donor aircraft are available, the fleet will fly. One of the reasons is that the aircraft fleet is young, there are few old ones, UTair has a 767, 737-400/500 are soon in the hangar, and 737-800 are still flying, but overall the fleet is young. Especially for Aeroflot, S7, etc. So for us, from the point of view of providing our own aircraft, the critical date will not be 2030, but rather 2035. At this point, mass write-offs will begin.
  14. +3
    24 March 2024 11: 15
    remembered the term cannibalism as applied to technology

    It is not entirely clear why this process was called such a scary term?
    In conditions of shortage of spare parts, this is a completely normal process. This is especially true for aircraft electronic equipment, where most of the blocks are easily removable. And it takes a few minutes to remove and put on.
    Well, there is a plane without engines, it’s a no-brainer that it won’t fly anywhere for the next year, and on it there is a radio station that is known to be working, the same one that failed on the other side. So why not swap them around? Well, if there is no new first category in stock.
    All this hype is for the inexperienced layman.
  15. 0
    24 March 2024 13: 09
    Not at all. Last minute Russian counterfeit Airbus and Boeing will cause great joy in the West - the sanctions are working, and will convince others that they need to be friends with the West so that the same thing does not happen.
    1. -1
      24 March 2024 19: 12
      They will convince others that dealing with Boeing and Airbus is unsafe and more expensive for themselves.
      And this is money that no one wants to lose
  16. 0
    24 March 2024 18: 20
    Maybe it’s time for those smart guys who switched the aviation industry to imported components to send abandoned villages to reclaim them?
    1. -1
      24 March 2024 19: 13
      Pol Pot practiced something similar
  17. +1
    24 March 2024 18: 24
    For example, in the automotive industry, at a time of acute shortage of electronic components, they generously allowed not to install ABS systems on new cars, as well as ERA-Glonass receivers, which directly affect safety and survivability. Now the situation has leveled off

    Is it really ERA-Glonass that directly affects survival!? wassat
    I don’t remember a single case of using this system for its intended purpose. Just extortion in favor of “whoever needs it”, like all sorts of “Platons” and “markings”. Mr. Usmanov, a well-known UZBEK (as he calls himself) businessman, probably gets good money from each beer stamp stuck on top of the already existing federal stamp from EGAIS.
    1. -1
      24 March 2024 19: 09
      There are no EGAIS stamps on beer. Where are you writing from???
      1. 0
        24 March 2024 23: 37
        Selling beer without connecting to EGAIS is punishable by law and is subject to a fine:
        For officials
        up to 15 thousand rubles
        For legal entities
        up to 200 thousand rubles
  18. -1
    24 March 2024 19: 08
    Very competent, balanced and objective opinion.
    Thank you
  19. 0
    24 March 2024 19: 21
    Quote: Glagol1
    Stas 157, what % is Embraer Brazilian? Engines and avionics are American, there are Italian components. But no one says that the Embraer is not a Brazilian plane.

    It’s even more interesting with Chinese passenger planes. In case of sanctions, will their civil aviation be covered?
    1. 0
      24 March 2024 21: 24
      At first it will be difficult, because not everything is localized yet, but then it will become easier. Huawei has overtaken Apple in market share in China, and their latest phone models use domestic processors.
    2. 0
      April 14 2024 13: 21
      It will be covered. Their Achilles' heel is engines. It sounds strange, but making an engine is a critically complex story. The NATO members contribute together + a little bit the Japs (they have 3 alliances) and the fourth is us (alone). It is necessary to link resource, consumption, cost, etc. into one product - and no China, Brazil, India, etc. can do this. The West is cooperating - well, no one can do it alone, well, the striped ones together with the maple ones, and it’s still difficult. So it’s enough not to give the engines - that’s it, alles. By the way, as soon as the PS-90A was not watered, a cloud of them was released and according to the aggregate criteria - a solid four on a five-point scale.
  20. +1
    24 March 2024 20: 34
    And now the main question is: will domestic aircraft factories be able to organize serial and rhythmic production of their own aircraft by that time?
    Given recent shifts in production timing to the right by a couple of years, the answer is far from obvious.
    What happened to the author’s eyes that he suddenly stopped seeing the answer?
  21. -1
    24 March 2024 23: 10
    It is obvious that the position of the “funeral team of lobbyists of the Western aviation industry in the authorities” is still strong. hi negative request
  22. -2
    25 March 2024 09: 44
    Dear Author, Comrade Skomorokhov, has already given you an answer before your article with his article.
  23. 0
    April 12 2024 13: 31
    Bypassing sanctions on the part of a foreign supplier is called “sequential export”.
  24. 0
    April 22 2024 16: 38
    Vanguyu - the date will again be moved forward several years. I bet 100 rubles))