Is a deadly Russian plane crash a sign of a failing system?

Russia has made strides since 2011, when its skies were found to be the most dangerous in the world. But a deadly Tatarstan Airlines crash has some worried that all is still not well.

Nikolai Alexandrov/AP
People place flowers in Kazan airport Monday, Nov. 18, 2013. A plane belonging to Tatarstan Airlines crashed Sunday while trying to land at its home port in the Russian city of Kazan, the capital of the oil-rich province of Tatarstan.

Just when you thought it was safe to take to the Russian skies again, the horrific crash of a Tatarstan Airlines Boeing 737 in the Volga city of Kazan, which killed all 50 people aboard, has raised anew the issues that have plagued Russian regional airlines for the past two decades: Aging aircraft, faulty maintenance, substandard airport infrastructure and poor pilot training.

A shocking video on YouTube apparently shows the airliner nosediving into the runway and exploding after at least one aborted attempt to land in rough weather.

Russian investigators say they will be examining the video, along with the plane's badly-damaged black box. The plane was on a regular flight from Moscow to Kazan, about 450 miles to the east, and officials have said the blustery wind and light rain at the airport were normal for this time of year. Among the dead are Irek Minnikhanov, the elder son of Republic of Tatarstan leader Rustam Minnikhanov, and Aleksander Antonov, the head of the local branch of Russia's FSB security service.

Investigators told Russian media Monday that they have ruled out terrorism and are looking into five likely causes of the accident. Those include pilot error, weather conditions, bad fuel, failure to observe safety rules and faulty maintenance of the 23-year old Boeing plane. That stirs the doubts that Russian airlines have struggled hard to shake off since accidents peaked in the disastrous year of 2011, when Russia had by far the world's worst safety record, according to the International Air Transport Association [IATA].

According to the group, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (making up the former Soviet Union) suffered 8.19 plane losses per million take-offs in 2011, nearly twice the global average of 4.17, and seven times worse than North America's 1.18 losses per million. Russian accidents that year included the crash of a Yak-42 aircraft near the Volga city of Yaroslavl, which wiped out that city's entire hockey team, and two other mass-fatality incidents. But in the past two years Russia's air safety record has improved markedly and IATA has praised Russian airlines for bringing their accident rate down to North American levels in 2012.

That likely has something to do with the fact that leading Russian carriers have been retiring aging Soviet-built aircraft, especially after then-President Dmitry Medvedev ordered two types grounded, and purchasing or leasing more modern Western-made machines. But the plane that crashed in Kazan Monday was a 23-year old Boeing 737-53A plane that Tatarstan Airlines had planned to withdraw from service by the end of 2012.

Russian aviation experts say it's necessary to wait for the outcome of the investigation before commenting on the accident's causes. But the impression that things have dramatically improved over the past couple of years isn't accurate, says Roman Gusarov, editor of, an online aviation journal. "There are periods when nothing happens, and then something happens. The problem is that we still have no system of preventive measures, to ensure the safety of flights, that corresponds to world standards," he says.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Is a deadly Russian plane crash a sign of a failing system?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today