Become familiar with all the new circumstances of the disaster Tu-22M3 in the Murmansk region. Official correspondence videoconferencing RF, as it turned out, contrary to at least the official statements of the Ministry of Defense. But more importantly,, tragedy could provoke a mistaken and unlawful interference by.
They became known to the new circumstances of the disaster Tu-22M3, crashed on the basis of long-range aviation, "Deer" in the Murmansk region. These newly discovered facts, Alas, bad side show information work Russian Defense Ministry.
In a statement, the military department, issued immediately after the tragedy, It stated unequivocally: "The bomber Tu-22M3, crashed as a result of a hard landing in the Murmansk region ... operating without ammunition ".
That's just the next day appeared in the Network of the photo report, which said the opposite: bomber carried out a training flight "with the presence of dangerous goods on board and ammunition", namely Kh-22H (under the left half-wings) without refueling, and 750 projectiles for cannons.
"Witnesses at the airport claim Olenegorska, that gun ammunition detonated after the fire, resulting from the disaster ", - According to the source, close to the high-ranking active and retired military).
Teletype will continue to quote a report about what happened: "... The commander made a landing with increased congestion near end (Runway). Next plane repeatedly separated from the runway, I began to crumble with the cabin crew branch of the fuselage, and was kindled. RP team (flight Director) on leaving the crew of the aircraft has not fulfilled. The plane crashed in 500 meters from the beginning of the runway. Blown. Cabin crew flew more », - the document says.
In other words, message Defense Ministry's press service refuted the official internal correspondence Russian VKS, ongoing in the framework of accident investigation.
The question arises: why the Ministry of Defense in the original report said that, that the bomber operating without ammunition? Experts put forward two suggestions. Or the phrase "operating without ammunition" - a standard template, which is by default inserted into such posts, and in the actual circumstances of flight of the Tu-22M3 compilers simply did not want to delve into. Or it is a deliberate introduction of misleading the public, "to, what is called, not to escalate ", - allows the source.
We note parenthetically, that the missile under the wing explosion-proof, it can not cause an explosion when the aircraft hit the ground. However, its very existence of a significant effect on the piloting of the aircraft, and complicates the implementation of landing. this, in its turn, It could be one of the prerequisites of the tragedy. In other words, availability of ammunition on the plane - not just a piece, exposing false officials, and the important fact to establish the causes of the disaster.
Thursday also became known the names of the dead pilots. This crew commander Major Alexei Guriev, Assistant commander Maj. Konstantin Mazunin, navigator-operator Captain Victor Greif. As previously reported, only surviving member of the crew - navigator instructor Lt. Col. Maxim Rylko.
It found another circumstance, which may be important to investigate the causes of the disaster. The source claims: while landing of two Tu-22M3, one of which crashed, at the Control Tower (KDP) He was commander of the 40th Mixed Aviation Regiment (Olenegorsk).
"The first board successfully landed. However, the weather has deteriorated dramatically - and the second head board flights (Polish) I gave the command to leave the alternate. And then behind him he broke the regimental commander - made strongly advised "to put". RP obeyed and gave permission to land. The car crashed ", - says a source.
To its credit, the Defense Ministry press service, some of her messages yet confirmed. So, Numerous and independent evidence, despite normal weather conditions during flight, when landing of Tu-22M3 really came to a sudden snow squalls. In such circumstances, flight leader had to send the car to the second round (snow squalls are short-lived) - that he wanted to do, as described above. But he was prevented.
Unfortunately, due to insufficient information in the public domain it becomes the main source of social networks. Another channel telegrams, "Wings of War", It quoted a source in the Armed Forces: "RP sent to the alternate (aerodromes), but curly himself gave the command to land. Verbatim, As I said, - his words: "Why the alternate? It's okay, cope ". Note: "Kinky" - regiment commander ". A similar version of the results and the source of the newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda". In other words, despite, that there is no official confirmation, Several cross-sectional and mutually independent sources give reason to trust this information.
Why regimental commander insisted on landing? This is the general practice - the pilots are extremely reluctant to go to the alternate airport due to a variety of household and technical problems, which has then return home.
Заслуженный военный летчик России генерал-майор Владимир Попов allowed, что могло иметь место давление на РП со стороны старшего по званию:
«Не исключен такой сценарий. У нас бывает так, that the command received discretionary decisions by fiat. Unlike civilian dispatchers, we, people in uniform, required to comply with the order to the commander ".
Question, but, in, who in the end will be legally responsible for the order - a man, sitting in a chair RP, or the, who pressured him? Who will go to court for an order, which led to the accident and loss of life? Accidents in such circumstances have occurred repeatedly in the Soviet Air Force and Russian - and legal responsibility always carried a flying head. the, who stood behind and "advised", I got off to the worst accent.
"The only thing, Flight leader could show integrity and say,: "I am in such circumstances does not bear responsibility. You are welcome, manage themselves, if you want to". But you know, with what consequences this will entail in the future ", - added Popov.
As for reports that, that served as a bomber training flight, having on board missiles and projectiles for cannons, then this just is not anything extraordinary, said Major General Popov. "Training flights are not performed" dry ", for the flight itself - according to the course of combat training, flight is a certain combat or tactical tasks. Combat maneuvering can be performed without the use of lethal, tactical flight arms can be performed without. But guns are always charged. Even circling, piloting according to techniques, is performed without removing the equipment ", - said Popov.
rocket hung, but it can be inert (ie without the head portion, without ammunition), but with the ability to perform tactical launches, said the expert. "Rocket could be on board to meet the weight and dimensional characteristics. Rockets on the Tu-22 fixed on the external sling, including, perhaps, asymmetrically, hemipteran on one or even on the three-point suspension, - said Popov. - Imagine, on one wing hanging 1.5-2 tons of rocket, and on the other - there is no. It has a few changes the conditions of piloting equipment, and need to be trained to fly in such conditions ".
Michael Moshkin
