Russia has not yet received samples of foreign elements found during examination on board the AZAL plane in Aktau

84
Russia has not yet received samples of foreign elements found during examination on board the AZAL plane in Aktau

Russia has not yet received samples of foreign elements that were found in the fuselage of the Azerbaijan Airlines plane that crashed at the airport in Aktau, Kazakhstan, sources involved in the investigation of the circumstances of the plane crash report. According to them, the claims that the plane was shot down rocket The Pantsir air defense missile system requires further study.

The Russian side has still not received samples of the foreign elements found in the aircraft body for examination. Therefore, the claims of a number of foreign media outlets about their identification as striking elements of the Pantsir SAM missile require at least additional study.

– the messages emphasize.



Let us recall that the Azerbaijan Airlines plane crashed at the airport of the Kazakh city of Aktau on December 25 last year. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev almost immediately blamed Russia for the plane crash.

However, the decoding of the airliner's flight recorders provided the investigation with a lot of useful information. In particular, the conversations of the plane's pilots became known, who decided that the plane had collided with a flock of birds. Information also appeared about the warning by Grozny air traffic controllers about the introduction of the "Carpet" plan.

Following this, the Russian Foreign Ministry called for not jumping to conclusions, emphasizing the need to wait for the official results of the investigation.

The Western press, however, did not do this. Numerous publications on this subject claim that the plane crashed as a result of an attack by the Russian Pantsir air defense system. At the same time, the Western press, of course, prefers not to notice the main thing: the reasons for introducing the Carpet at Grozny airport were attacks by Ukrainian drones.
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -13
    5 February 2025 08: 36
    Well, they just won't calm down. They said that a bird got into a compressed air cylinder, which exploded and destroyed the plane. That's it. Period. Anything can happen to planes. Look, they even play with grenades there. Planes are strange things...
    1. +7
      5 February 2025 08: 44
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Airplanes are strange things in general...

      Of course they are strange, they hit him with a missile and he flew another 400 km...
      And no one on board noticed that they were shot at and that there were holes all the way through the cabin. And the tail unit was all in a sieve...
      1. 0
        5 February 2025 08: 59
        they hit him with a missile and he flew another 400 km...

        I admit that they were not hitting it, but a drone nearby, and some of the fragments hit the plane. Why does no one pay attention to the exact chronology of time - When did the pilots receive the "Carpet" command, meaning the closure of the skies over the airport in Grozny? It is one thing to receive this warning a hundred kilometers from the city and, despite it, try to land. Then all the blame is definitely on the pilots. But if this command was received too late, a couple of hundred meters from the runway, already above the city, then it would have been easier and safer to continue landing, and not turn the plane around, being in the affected area much longer. And it seems that the pilots made two attempts to land in Grozny, and then even more so, we need to understand when they received this "Carpet" warning and whether they received it at all.
        1. +1
          5 February 2025 09: 24
          According to the Kazakh chronology of the incident, the warning "COVER" was received after the plane was damaged...
          1. 0
            5 February 2025 09: 35
            So, this warning command was too late? And the plane simply did not have time to leave the danger zone?
            Maybe they are in vain rushing to give us incomplete, dosed information, developing an unnecessary discussion with guesses and fantasies of ordinary people? Sort it out once and for all and do not stir up the people! It looks unworthy on our part...
            1. +1
              5 February 2025 09: 57
              ""Maybe we are in a hurry for nothing"" You, we are being led by professional journalists to emotions, think not with emotions...
              The airport dispatcher does not have a radar for such matters, only the military can transfer them to him and not necessarily directly. All actions are viewed through a unit of time in standard daily conditions and force majeure.
              Well, the command was late, Ukrainians the military and the airport are not warned in advance about the location of the attack.. as soon as they arrived, they announced a carpet.. And where the plane ended up.. parking, acceleration, takeoff with a climb or somewhere high up...
        2. +3
          5 February 2025 12: 41
          Quote: Saburov_Alexander53
          But if this command was given too late, a couple of hundred meters from the runway, already above the city, then it would have been easier and safer to continue landing, rather than turn the plane around, being in the kill zone much longer. And it seems the pilots made two attempts to land in Grozny, and then even more so, we need to understand when they received and whether they received this "Carpet" warning at all.

          The plane's control system failed. The pilots, highly skilled professionals, were flying the plane with different engine thrust. They flew to Kazakhstan because there were the most favorable wind and cloud conditions and there were no mountains around the airfield.
          1. -3
            5 February 2025 14: 59
            Quote: Askold65
            The plane's control system failed. The pilots, highly skilled professionals, were flying the plane with different engine thrust. They flew to Kazakhstan because there were the most favorable wind and cloud conditions and there were no mountains around the airfield.

            That is, in your opinion, across the sea - where it is impossible to land and with non-working rudders - optimal option?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. -1
              6 February 2025 13: 39
              Quote: your1970
              So, in your opinion, across the sea - where it is impossible to land and with non-working rudders - is the best option?

              The crew did not intend to land at sea. The crew needed conditions for landing the aircraft with the rudders not working. They flew to where there was favorable weather and flat terrain. And using the engines, they tried to land the plane.
              1. -2
                6 February 2025 15: 10
                Quote: Askold65
                Quote: your1970
                So, in your opinion, across the sea - where it is impossible to land and with non-working rudders - is the best option?

                The crew did not intend to land at sea. The crew needed conditions for landing the aircraft with the rudders not working. They flew to where there was favorable weather and flat terrain. And using the engines, they tried to land the plane.

                Much closer and NOT There were sites across the sea.
                In my opinion, we should have landed immediately on any available site.
                But in any case, the PIC's train of thought cannot be restored; it was his decision and his fate - with the passengers...
                1. -1
                  6 February 2025 15: 25
                  Quote: your1970
                  But in any case, the PIC's train of thought cannot be restored; it was his decision and his fate - with the passengers...

                  There is a detailed analysis on YouTube by Andrey Litvinov, the Boeing (or Airbus - I don't remember) commander, based on the published radio communications between the PIC and the dispatchers in Grozny. He clearly said that the crew made the most correct decision in this situation. He gave an analogy that it is the same as driving a car without a steering wheel with two gas pedals. First one, then the other... If you release the gas - the plane dives down (descent under the force of gravity), if you press both pedals, the plane rises up a little.
                  A very high-class commander.... May he rest in peace.....
                  1. -2
                    6 February 2025 20: 03
                    Quote: Askold65
                    A very high-class commander....

                    If the plane had survived, we could have talked about its high class.
                    Alas, only God knows how correct the decisions the captain made...
                    1. -2
                      6 February 2025 20: 37
                      Quote: your1970
                      If the plane had survived, we could have talked about its high class.

                      The plane reached the destination the crew had directed, having done everything possible and even impossible in such a situation. Almost half of the passengers survived.
                      Quote: your1970
                      Alas, only God knows how correct the decisions the captain made...

                      Trust in God, but don't be lazy yourself.... I wrote that landing a practically uncontrollable plane in strong wind and low clouds, and surrounded by mountainous terrain, was even more impossible. And the pilots flew to where there was a better chance of some kind of rescue.
      2. +3
        5 February 2025 09: 04
        If they had hit it with a missile... it would hardly have flown that far... I will believe that the air defense shot down the drone/UAV, and the explosives that went off and its fragments "successfully" hit the plane.
        Or there was no air defense at all (regarding the plane), only a DRONE/UAV damaged the plane (provocation)
        1. +1
          5 February 2025 09: 23
          Or there was no air defense at all (regarding the plane), only a DRONE/UAV damaged the plane (provocation)

          And do drones have the ability to detonate remotely (non-contact), or should it crash into the target? To calculate the meeting with the plane so precisely, a couple of hours before takeoff... If technologies have advanced to this point, then now any plane, and military first of all, is under the threat of drones.
          1. +1
            5 February 2025 09: 44
            I wouldn't like to say too much..
            "under threat from drones." Well, yes, the world has changed.. the world is like this now...
            Previously, a tauretka in the hands of special forces was a weapon of mass destruction, but now a stool can end up in the hands of someone you can’t even trust with a car...
            "And drones have the opportunity" Through Elon Musk's products.
            ""Calculate the meeting so precisely"" Nothing complicated, the plane is not a charter but a scheduled one, which means it is known what days and times the arrival and departure from this airport is. Even if it were known that there is a certain political figure there for liquidation...
        2. 0
          5 February 2025 10: 30
          Larger aircraft often survive a single hit from a small anti-aircraft missile. The Pantsir missile has only 5 kg of explosives in its warhead, which is enough to shoot down missiles and tactical aircraft, but against such a large target it can simply damage it. Even larger missiles, such as those the Ukrainians launched against the Il-22 that successfully made an emergency landing last year, do not guarantee loss of control.
      3. -2
        5 February 2025 14: 37
        your1970
        Today, 08: 44
        Of course they are strange, they hit him with a missile and he flew another 400 km...
        And no one on board noticed that they were shot at and that there were holes all the way through the cabin. And the tail unit was all in a sieve...


        hi Initially, the blame lies with the liquid drug lord, he admitted at the meeting in Davos, shaking hands with the leader in the photo.
    2. 0
      5 February 2025 08: 48
      The Americans have strange things. Transvestites ramming planes in helicopters.
      1. +1
        5 February 2025 09: 03
        And they also beat up blacks...
        Or maybe they used to beat me, but now it's the other way around... winked
        1. 0
          5 February 2025 09: 32
          On the contrary. Now they beat up white people there even for a sideways glance or for not giving a couple of bucks to a black slacker.
  2. +1
    5 February 2025 08: 38
    I wouldn't be surprised if Russia gets nothing. It will all depend on who planned this disaster.
    Aliyev is really hooked on this case and is loudly spitting saliva. Usually, those involved in this do this.
    1. +1
      5 February 2025 08: 39
      Aliyev just wants to make money and get preferential treatment, and also take the position of an accuser.
      1. +1
        5 February 2025 08: 41
        But you can be both the initiator and demand preferences; one does not interfere with the other.
        Business and nothing more.
    2. +11
      5 February 2025 08: 42
      Aliyev needs to be put in his place. Hard.

      And finally sort out the diasporas.
      1. -1
        5 February 2025 08: 51
        I agree. It's only worth starting and Aliyev will be quieter!
      2. +1
        5 February 2025 08: 56
        Aliyev needs to be put in his place. Hard.
        And finally sort out the diasporas.

        I absolutely agree and support your point of view! good
        Because it's already too much and for a long time...
      3. -2
        5 February 2025 09: 37
        finally sort out the diasporas

        Trump-style
        Where can I get such a trump? sad
  3. Fy;
    -11
    5 February 2025 08: 40
    That the plane was damaged by a SAM explosion is obvious to me and to thinking and uncommitted people in general. And the authorities - of course, will deny their involvement to the last.

    “Initial inspection of the surviving fragments revealed multiple through and non-through damages of varying sizes and shapes in the tail section of the fuselage, vertical stabilizer and stabilizer, elevator and rudder,” the report states.

    The investigation committee reportedly carried out actions to extract foreign objects that could have been preserved in the blind damages in order to send them for additional forensic examination. As a result, a large number of foreign objects were extracted from the blind damages.

    Earlier, the Kazakh Ministry of Transport published a preliminary report on the plane crash near Aktau. The report outlines preliminary expert conclusions, which were made, among other things, based on an analysis of the black box data.
    1. +4
      5 February 2025 08: 47
      The question is not whether it was hit by an air defense missile system, but whose and where - that’s the first thing.
      Secondly, why didn’t the pilot land at the nearest airfield in a faulty plane for a long time, but flew to a target known only to him, plus making incomprehensible loops before landing.
      Thirdly, according to radio communications, it is unclear to whom else he reported his actions other than the dispatcher of the area of ​​responsibility.
      1. Fy;
        -8
        5 February 2025 10: 07
        Whose SAM was on Russian territory, near Grozny - well, that's a very, very difficult question. Probably Panama's? Or maybe the USA's? Or can you still try to make a fantastic assumption that ONLY RUSSIAN SAM could be located and operating on Russian territory? ))))

        "why didn't the pilot land at the nearest airfield" - because of a control malfunction, disabled by an explosion - it was simply running out of fuel. In addition - this is just my assumption - the pilots might NOT have believed in an objective and impartial investigation of the causes of the crash.
        "it's unclear to whom he reported" - so what? This doesn't affect the fact that the plane was hit by a SAM missile. And, for me, it's obvious - by a RUSSIAN missile from a RUSSIAN SAM.
        1. -1
          5 February 2025 10: 47
          For people like you, there is an article of the Criminal Code on discrediting the RF Armed Forces.
          1. Fy;
            -5
            5 February 2025 11: 28
            Got it - for mentioning the fact that the plane crashed after being shot at from the ground, you dream of depriving those who say this of their freedom. People like you threw Strelkov behind bars.
            1. 0
              5 February 2025 11: 38
              I'm just warning you. You can't call anyone a criminal until you have 100% proof.

              And there is no Strelkov, there is the white ribbon wearer from Bolotnaya, Girkin.
              1. Fy;
                -5
                5 February 2025 13: 01
                Girkin is a white ribboner??? Is that something new? As far as I know, he never supported Bolotnaya. But he always, in all wars, fought for the interests of Russia. He, the fool, did not yet know then that the interests of Russia and the interests of the Russian government are slightly different things...
        2. +2
          5 February 2025 15: 15
          pilots might NOT have believed in an objective and impartial investigation in the event of a disaster
          - How do you imagine this? They are fighting for their lives - their own, the passengers'. And they are thinking about who and how will investigate the accident and study their remains? I wonder if you will think about insurance if the brakes on your car fail on a slippery road?
          1. Fy;
            -2
            5 February 2025 17: 41
            Don't compare the failure of brakes in a car, where seconds count, with this incident, where if the plane didn't crash right away, the PIC had plenty of time to think. And it's obvious that he was actually running out of fuel - when he saw that the elevators weren't working.
            1. 0
              5 February 2025 17: 49
              So what? Constantly "catching" the plane with the throttle levers and thinking about something else - I don't believe in it. Just as I don't believe in running out of fuel on a plane that is clearly in trouble, where the situation can get worse at any moment. All thoughts should be about only one thing - how and where to land and not crash. And what will happen after landing or a catastrophe - that's the tenth thing.
              And regarding the SAM system - there are still many questions, few answers, but for you everything is crystal clear. Do you like to run ahead of the locomotive?
              1. Fy;
                -1
                6 February 2025 09: 04
                It's immediately obvious that you're out of the loop. The first thing a pilot thinks about when he loses control and has unused fuel is how to use it up. Google the news "Airplane running out of fuel" - "Why is it so important to run out of fuel before landing".
                But who am I? I am not an expert. I am just a smart enough person who does not put his incompetent, frankly admitted, opinion above the opinion of competent experts.
                And now we give the floor to the expert:

                The plane, flying from Baku to Grozny, made two loops before crashing in Aktau to burn off the remaining fuel. The pilots foresaw the disaster and wanted to minimize the force of a possible explosion. This assumption was made by the general director of the Aeroport civil aviation association Viktor Gorbachev in an interview with the Vzglyad newspaper.

                "Obviously, the pilots foresaw that landing could lead to tragic consequences. <...> They left fuel only for landing. It is possible that this saved those who survived - the explosion was much smaller than it could have been," Gorbachev emphasized.


                Well, there are countless news stories with words like "However, in order to land safely, it was necessary to use up some of the fuel, as a result of which the airliner flew in a circular trajectory"!
    2. -1
      5 February 2025 09: 11
      Quote: Fy;
      That the plane was damaged by a SAM explosion is obvious to me and to thinking and uncommitted people in general. And the authorities - of course, will deny their involvement to the last.

      That is, the pilots fly calmly. 400 km with through holes in the tail and fuselage and do not notice of this?
      Power Do you notice any damage? It's practically zero - if the strength was enough for 400 km...
      1. 0
        5 February 2025 09: 27
        There seems to be a leak in the hydraulics, which accordingly affected the control failure during landing. During landing, the load is greater than in flight.
        ► Dispatchers warned the AZAL crew in advance about the introduction of the “Carpet” plan in Grozny.

        ► The flight crew reported a strong impact and explosion in the area of ​​the rear seats.

        ► Numerous holes and foreign metal objects were found in the aircraft body, indicating penetration of external objects into the structure. Most of the damage to the aircraft is in the vertical stabilizer and stabilizer.

        ► Following these damages, the aircraft lost pressure and hydraulic fluid.

        ► Before the crash, the PIC reported a critical amount of oxygen. Hence the version about the explosion of the oxygen tank.
      2. Fy;
        -5
        5 February 2025 10: 08
        Nonsense. The steering was out of order - but the airframe did not fall apart. Do you want to try to prove that the damage was inflicted elsewhere? )))
        1. -2
          5 February 2025 10: 53
          Quote: Fy;
          Nonsense. The steering was out of order - but the airframe did not fall apart. Do you want to try to prove that the damage was inflicted elsewhere? )))

          I want to say that if the steering control was out of order near Grozny, the plane would have fallen there after flying +- 50-max 100 km. But it flew 400...
          1. Fy;
            -4
            5 February 2025 11: 26
            Well, next time think before you say something - because the failure of the steering control does not mean that the plane should have immediately crashed to the ground, the plane was partially controllable - the crew could steer the engines, it is difficult, hard and inconvenient, but possible. The elevator and rudder did not work - but why did you decide that without them the plane would immediately fall? These are not engines.
            1. -1
              5 February 2025 11: 57
              Quote: Fy;
              Well, next time, think before you say something.

              This also applies to you - because:
              1) the crew did not shout at the top of their lungs: "We are shot down and losing control!!" It was their direct responsibility to inform ground services about the emergency on board so that the ground could make decisions on the matter.
              2) did not look for an airfield/landing opportunity, but instead this one went across the sea belay - where it is impossible to land. On land, you can at worst fall on your belly - it won't work at sea.
              3) 400 km is too much

              1. Fy;
                -3
                5 February 2025 12: 59
                Nonsense. At that moment they DID NOT KNOW that there was a UAV attack outside and anti-aircraft missiles being launched at them. So far, air defense missile attacks on aircraft are rare in the Russian Federation - unlike bird strikes.
                Of course, they thought about them first.
                Then - on the ground they can only give RECOMMENDATIONS, and all decisions are made by the PIC, he and only he is the king and god on board.
                Why did they "go across the sea"? The captain knows better why. Obviously, he assessed the condition of the aircraft, its controllability, fuel reserves and the situation outside - and decided that it would be safer to use up the fuel by flying straight across the sea than to constantly change the engine operating mode.
                "400 km is too much" - but what did they want to say? That there was no shelling? ) That "the plane itself broke down and what does it have to do with us"? )
                1. -2
                  5 February 2025 13: 04
                  Quote: Fy;
                  Then - on the ground they can only give RECOMMENDATIONS, and all decisions are made by the PIC, he and only he is the king and god on board.

                  Azerbaijan stated that it was the land that gave the order to fly through the Caspian Sea.
                  Everything is very murky - starting from the damaging elements chaotic forms (UAV charge?) to the unclear who, whom and where sent to land.
                  There will be a chemical analysis of the damaging elements - everything will be clearer
    3. +2
      5 February 2025 09: 12
      I can't imagine yet that the Ukrainians loaded their drone with "foreign objects" specifically to destroy the aircraft. Until now I have not heard that drones are used to fight aircraft in the air. On the ground, yes, and there the charge simply explodes upon contact with the target or the ground. And if the drone had crashed into the plane in the air, then I suppose the holes would have looked different. The photos of the fragments found do not at all resemble the striking elements of an air defense missile, but rather fragments of the drone itself or its ordinary charge that it carried. But what provoked non-contact the explosion of the drone itself near the tail of the plane, that is the question?
      1. +1
        5 February 2025 09: 22
        And if we look at it, that it was not the drone that crashed into the plane on purpose (the drone does not have the capabilities), but the plane, flying at cruising speed, accidentally collided with the drone, could this be an option? Given the speed of the plane, the air flows, could the drone explode in the area of ​​the rear sphere?
        1. -2
          5 February 2025 09: 30
          and the plane, flying at cruising speed, accidentally collided with a drone, could this be an option?

          Good version! I'll take note. And in this case, the exact chronology of time with all the events comes first again. Starting with the exact time the "Carpet" command was received by the pilots. Was it recognized by them in the conditions of the EW action. At what second of the flight and over what coordinates of the place they were hit in the tail, and so on.
        2. Fy;
          0
          5 February 2025 10: 13
          If the plane had collided with the drone, there would have been huge, jagged holes from a close explosion. The drone's charge is designed to damage ground structures - a close explosion would have simply crushed the plane like a tin can!
          However, it is possible that the drone was hit by an anti-aircraft missile near the airliner - very unlikely, but possible.
          And that the fragments that flew down the tail of the plane were not from a SAM missile, but from a drone. Then all my assumptions that the plane was hit by a missile are not true, but here we need to wait for the results of the analysis of the fragments from the tail of the plane.
    4. -1
      5 February 2025 09: 35
      If it had been an anti-aircraft missile that had exploded nearby, the plane would not have flown so much more...
      Look at the photo of the cabin of flight MH-17, there is a colander there, not scattered, widely spaced holes....
      1. Fy;
        +1
        5 February 2025 10: 10
        Here is a photo of the tail of an airplane that flew by and landed successfully after a close anti-aircraft missile explosion:
        1. +1
          5 February 2025 10: 13
          ...and please compare the photo you provided with the damage to the Azerbaijani plane - there are rare minor damages....
          1. Fy;
            -2
            5 February 2025 10: 15
            Is it okay that most likely the planes were fired at with DIFFERENT missiles?
            I am not an explosives expert, but simple logic says that from different types of warheads with different striking elements, the fragments and holes from them will also be different.
            In addition, there is a version that the plane was hit not by fragments of a missile, but by fragments of a drone shot down near the plane, but here we need the results of an analysis of the fragments from the tail of the plane.
            1. -1
              5 February 2025 10: 23
              Maybe you are right about the different missiles.... Here, of course, explosive experts need to examine the situation and make a well-founded conclusion....
              But this is just empty talk, there are already a lot of conspiracy theorists...
              1. Fy;
                -2
                5 February 2025 10: 35
                By the way. Regarding comments like "If a Pantsir missile were fired at an airplane, it would be blown to atomic dust" (I'm exaggerating) - there is such a thing, the TKB-1055 anti-drone small missile for Pantsir, it's on the left in the photo.
                Of course, the fragments from it will be smaller, and there will be fewer fragments themselves.
    5. 0
      5 February 2025 12: 14
      Why should the authorities come up with something? They could have paid the injured party some money and that's it.
  4. -3
    5 February 2025 08: 43
    In short, it's clear, a flock of geese "suicide bombers", with a "shahid" belt))
  5. -2
    5 February 2025 08: 44
    Apparently, it was indeed shot down. The flight recorder recorded two external sounds similar to explosions, after which the plane began to lose control. The tail section, left wing and engine have multiple holes from striking elements, including square ones. It is surprising that it still flew to Aktau after two hits, and the hits were precisely over Grozny, while the plane was circling before landing due to bad weather.
    1. -3
      5 February 2025 09: 00
      It's clear that they shot it down. Who shot it down is a question. The drones flew up when the plane was already approaching for landing. Accidentally? I don't know. Does Ukraine have drones with manual or automatic target acquisition? I don't know. Why did the PIC bring the plane to an airport with bad weather conditions and stubbornly circle above it? What shape are the striking elements of the Pantsir missiles? I don't know. There's little information in the public domain.
      In any case, to fly somewhere with such damage... If you were shot down, land!
    2. -1
      5 February 2025 09: 14
      1 explosion. SAM shoots down drone
      2 explosion. Detonation of explosives (filled with fragments from something) on ​​a UAV/Drone
      2.2 The plane was unlucky to end up where it was flying...
      I don't see any other reasons yet.
      3. It is hushed up... well, it's understandable, now politics is above everything else...
      4. If we are so bad, why doesn't the Russian Federation provide fragments of the elements? Maybe because they are thinking about how to later get Ukraine or another state out of NATO..? And that's why they won't provide them, so that we don't have any solid evidence...
      1. -2
        5 February 2025 09: 34
        After the first explosion, 1 hydraulic systems of the aircraft failed, after the second explosion, another system failed.
        1. -1
          5 February 2025 09: 48
          And was there one drone/UAV there... Doesn't change the essence. Small fragments are secondary. Several large, round ones... SAM cannon artillery. The plane flew into the trajectory of the SAM shot or the UAV used it as cover... There are many options, the essence is the same..
      2. -1
        5 February 2025 12: 50
        Quote: vfwfr
        1 explosion. SAM shoots down drone
        2 explosion. Detonation of explosives (filled with fragments from something) on ​​a UAV/Drone
        2.2 The plane was unlucky to end up where it was flying...
        I don't see any other reasons yet.
        3. It is hushed up... well, it's understandable, now politics is above everything else...
        4. If we are so bad, why doesn't the Russian Federation provide fragments of the elements? Maybe because they are thinking about how to later get Ukraine or another state out of NATO..? And that's why they won't provide them, so that we don't have any solid evidence...

        Try to imagine this version - two explosive devices are planted in the plane before takeoff. One under the passenger seats in the tail of the cabin, the other somewhere in the wing area (engine, chassis, etc.). Clockwork mechanisms detonate the explosives with a difference of several seconds, which is recorded by sensors. Remember - "two seats exploded", which the flight attendant reports to the commander. The explosion of the first damaged the hydraulic systems and control drives. The explosion of the second damaged the tail and side of the plane. Everything coincides in time with the attack on the airport by drones - the flight is on schedule, its arrival time is known +/-, calculating the flight time for drones is not difficult. Look at the photo of the striking elements - there is some kind of chopped wire or nails, are striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles like that? As a result - the crash of a civilian aircraft against the background of the work of the Russian air defense - why not blame Russia for all sins? With the Malaysian MH-17 it worked.
    3. -3
      5 February 2025 09: 20
      Quote from: Peter1First
      It is surprising that it still reached Aktau after two hits, and the hits were precisely over Grozny,

      Seriously? 400 km after 2 hits SAM? And also did not notice that they got hit and his whole tail ended up in a sieve?!!

      Quote from: Peter1First
      The flight recorder recorded two external sounds similar to explosions, after which the plane started to lose control.
      - and lost control at 400 km? And for some reason the crew NOT he yelled obscenities into the air: "Mommy, we've been shot down, we're losing control, we're falling:+:+:+:+!!!!"
      And yes - there are no airfields nearby except Grozny - for the type of "plane falling due to loss of control"??!!!
      1. -2
        5 February 2025 11: 13
        Quote: your1970
        But for some reason the crew did NOT yell obscenities into the air"

        This also interests me: if we abstract from the question: "Who shot it down and with what", then a second question arises - the actions of the crew. Apparently, they did not understand what happened and for some reason decided not to land at the nearest airfield or in the "corn field" (remember "Go towards the sun along the rows of corn"), but flew across the Caspian Sea, where, if anything, everyone would have been guaranteed to die upon splashdown. Does this mean that everything on board was more or less normal? That the plane could not maneuver - it could, it did so near Aktau. In general, there are questions.
      2. +1
        5 February 2025 12: 47
        Quote: your1970
        Seriously? 400 km after 2 SAM hits? And they didn't even notice that they were hit and his whole tail was in a sieve?!!

        In the history of aviation, there have been worse things. Even if the engine is hit, the plane can fly up to 100 km, and if the engines are running, 400 km is not the limit, although there may be problems with landing. The "Carpet" plan was introduced 8 minutes after the incident, the electronic warfare systems began to work earlier, GPS failures were noted throughout the region, and quite naturally, control problems began. Why didn't they notice and shout on the air? Well, pilots are generally pretty balanced people, and they noticed
        5: 16:54 E: So, ah, there was a strong impact, the rear seats there exploded, the flight attendant reported. We are heading to Mineralnye Vody, please give us the weather for Mineralnye Vody.

        The crew reported about the birds at the very beginning, but I think the pilots could not even imagine that the SAM system was targeting them. The dispatcher reported the weather in Mineralnye Vody, then the pilot asked for the weather in Makhachkala. Then the confusion began.
        According to Azerbaijani government sources, the plane, which was damaged by a Russian surface-to-air missile (at the time of the UAV activity in the skies over Grozny), was not given permission to land at Russian airports, despite the pilots' requests for an emergency landing. Instead, the pilots were ordered to fly across the Caspian Sea towards Aktau. The head of the Federal Air Transport Agency, Dmitry Yadrov, in turn, said that the commander was offered other airports for landing (Yadrov did not say which ones), but he decided to go to Aktau airport.

        The pilot's decision to approach Aktau could have been due to the fact that Aktau airport is located on a desert plain, its runway is 400 meters longer and 20 meters wider than the airport in Makhachkala, in the direction of which the plane initially followed after the emergency situation arose, and the flat terrain also left a chance to try to land outside the airfield, while the closer airfields in Mineralnye Vody, Vladikavkaz, Nalchik, Tbilisi and Makhachkala are located in a mountainous or foothill zone, where the landing approach is carried out according to a strict scheme and requires flawless work of both the pilot and the aircraft controls. In addition, according to meteorological services, there was quite heavy and in places low cloud cover over the entire territory of the North Caucasus that day.
        1. -2
          5 February 2025 13: 00
          The only thing is definitely will solve this issue - analysis of damaging elements. Everything else is fortune telling on coffee grounds
          1. +1
            5 February 2025 13: 14
            Quote: your1970
            The only thing that will definitely resolve this issue is an analysis of the damaging elements.

            No, the system cannot work like that. The examination is considered compromised. In a similar situation, Iran admitted shooting down its air defense on the 3rd day. Here they started working according to the classic scheme "not everything is so clear-cut" hence the emergence of many versions about birds, an oxygen tank, a Ukrainian DRG, an anti-aircraft drone, pilot error, etc. We have already seen this. If the issue was only about compensation, they would have quietly paid it. The problem is Aliyev, he demanded an official recognition of the error, and no one will agree to this for political reasons.
            1. -2
              5 February 2025 13: 49
              Quote: Skif3216
              birds, oxygen cylinder,

              Versions??? fool
              It’s actually crew reported.

              Quote: Skif3216
              Expertise is deemed compromised
              - they participate there our specialists.
              This is not the Malaysian Boeing - where ours were not allowed in, so we did not automatically accept the results.

              Quote: Skif3216
              The problem is Aliyev, he demanded an official admission of the mistake, and no one will agree to that political motives.

              Why would this happen? It was an accident, it happens, there was no goal to shoot down this plane.
              The USSR at one time recognized the plane - which flew without a pilot to Holland and crashed into a farm there. And paid compensation.
              The Russian Federation admits that this is an accidental shooting down.
              1. -1
                5 February 2025 15: 26
                Quote: your1970
                This is actually what the crew reported.

                The crew assumed that these were birds, that after the collision with birds on board there was an "abnormal situation" and the captain of the aircraft decided to go to an alternate airfield, an hour after the plane crash, the press secretary of Rosaviatsiya Artem Korenyako said, and no first let's figure it out and wait for the conclusions of the official investigation. The version that the cause of the crash could allegedly be a collision with birds or an explosion of an oxygen tank was initially spread by our media, such as "Russia 1", but already on December 27, when a lot of evidence appeared about external impact on the plane, the morning broadcasts of TV channels did not pay attention to the versions of the plane crash.
                Quote: your1970
                our specialists are involved there

                What will prevent us from declaring that our experts do not recognize the results of the investigation?
                Quote: your1970
                Why would this happen? It was an accident, it happens, there was no goal to shoot down this plane.

                So no one claims that they shot it down on purpose, and the Iranians didn’t shoot down the Ukrainian plane on purpose either.
                Quote: your1970
                The USSR at one time recognized the plane - it flew without a pilot to Holland and crashed into a farm there.

                The Union could afford to admit a mistake. The strong can afford it.
                Quote: your1970
                The Russian Federation admits that this is an accidental shooting down.

                No. If they wanted to admit it, they would have done it in a week at most. The air defense officers and dispatchers have not disappeared anywhere, like the legendary dispatcher Carlos and pilot Voloshin. Do you remember even one case in modern history where the management admitted an error at such a level?
                1. -2
                  5 February 2025 16: 40
                  Quote: Skif3216
                  Let's get this straight first and wait for the conclusions of the official investigation.

                  - Let's really wait for the results first.
                  And then you will be indignant - but there is no horse or cart, and you demand an apology.
                  Azerbaijan will remind...
        2. -1
          5 February 2025 13: 10
          Quote: Skif3216
          The plane, which was damaged by a Russian surface-to-air missile (at the time of the UAV activity over Grozny), was not given permission to land at Russian airports despite the pilots' requests for an emergency landing. Instead, the pilots were ordered to fly across the Caspian Sea towards Aktau, according to Azerbaijani government sources.

          There is no such thing in the transcript of the crew’s conversations with ground services, which was published by the Ministry of Transport of Kazakhstan.
  6. +3
    5 February 2025 08: 47
    The procedure for investigating such incidents was not explained in these statements. Perhaps the procedure involves providing samples and everything found after complete investigation that has not yet ended. Which is completely logical.
    And the expression I haven't received it yet does not mean that he will not receive it at all.

    IMHO the journalists are stirring things up and rushing things. Whether it's due to ignorance or on purpose is also unknown.
    1. -2
      5 February 2025 09: 16
      IMHO journalists... "or on purpose"
  7. -2
    5 February 2025 09: 21
    I feel sorry for people.
    But alas, it's a fact of life. It was shot down over Iran, it was shot down over the LPR and DPR, it simply fell near Crimea, it fell in Korea, etc.
    People are dying. The elite from their warm chairs: "well, you know"
    1. -2
      5 February 2025 12: 05
      Quote: Max1995
      People are dying. The elite from their warm chairs: "well, you know"

      When a hockey team crashed in the USSR, the elite simply kept everything secret from their warm chairs without getting up...
  8. -2
    5 February 2025 09: 47
    Quote: Fy;
    That the plane was damaged by a SAM explosion is obvious to me and to thinking and uncommitted people in general. And the authorities - of course, will deny their involvement to the last.

    “Initial inspection of the surviving fragments revealed multiple through and non-through damages of varying sizes and shapes in the tail section of the fuselage, vertical stabilizer and stabilizer, elevator and rudder,” the report states.

    The investigation committee reportedly carried out actions to extract foreign objects that could have been preserved in the blind damages in order to send them for additional forensic examination. As a result, a large number of foreign objects were extracted from the blind damages.

    Earlier, the Kazakh Ministry of Transport published a preliminary report on the plane crash near Aktau. The report outlines preliminary expert conclusions, which were made, among other things, based on an analysis of the black box data.

    If this is the filling of factory-made air defense missiles, then I am Sebastian Pereira, a merchant of "black" wood.
  9. 0
    5 February 2025 11: 08
    If there had been no pig-faced drones, there would have been no such terrible catastrophe. The Ukrainian Armed Forces should be held accountable
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. 0
    6 February 2025 11: 57
    It's all strange. And what did our Supreme One apologize for? Or did they deceive him again, mislead him, or did he rush?
  12. 0
    6 February 2025 11: 59
    It is profitable for someone to delay. If the striking elements and holes from them do not match the Pantsir's PE, it turns out that a Ukrainian drone crashed into the plane. And if they do match, it means that it was shot down by mistake, repelling the drone attack on the airport. There is no third option.
  13. 0
    8 February 2025 21: 26
    The Bozbashniks gave the khokhols the flight's arrival time. This is a provocation! Aliyev gave the go-ahead for this provocation. He is the culprit of what happened.
  14. 0
    8 February 2025 21: 51
    First of all, we don’t have all the results yet!
    I feel sorry for the people and my condolences!
    Considering the commission's data on the negotiations, it is strange that the pilot did not land at the nearest airports. It is somehow strange, because the weather there was good, this is Makhachkala and Rostov!
    Now let's assume, before the official facts, that it was damaged by a Russian anti-aircraft missile!
    There are no military operations in Grozny and it is not adjacent to cities where military operations are taking place!
    But Ukraine sent Russian attack drones there, just like any other country would have implemented a coveted plan and repelled the attack!
    And I admit that the missile could have been directed at a civilian airliner, but the reason for all this is the attack on Ukraine by drones!
    Secondly, for some reason after the damage the pilot did not land at the nearby airports!
    And in the negotiations, not a word about an air defense attack, because it is impossible to confuse a bird strike from an airplane with a missile, which, when it explodes, makes a very loud explosion that the pilots could not help but hear!
    And it’s sad that some people are exaggerating and blaming not the root causes but the investigative ones, and even then without any investigation results!
    What about the explosion of seats and depressurization of the plane?
    Is it possible that the seats exploded not from external influences, but something exploded there!?
    After depressurization, various things started flying out of the cabin and damaging the left side!
    I'm not an expert, but theoretically it's a version!
    And people don’t understand that drones had to be shot down because they could have caused huge casualties among the civilian population, much more than, unfortunately, an aircraft!
    There is no need to put forward versions of accusations; wait for the results of the investigation and the facts!