"Man is the weakest link in aviation"

Sergey Nedoroslev - The New Times

Sergey Nedoroslev was born in 1963 in Barnaul. In 1985 he graduated from the Faculty of Physics of Altai State University, then studied at graduate school of the Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (MIET). In 1988, he created the first private company in the Altai Territory, which was engaged in the development of software, then carried away with aerospace equipment and founded a group of companies Caskol, where he heads the board of directors. DEXTER shareholder providing Avtaxi services. Married, he has four children. Hobbies - plays hockey as part of the Premier team.

The banality of evil
** Another collapse of the aircraft - now UTAIR under Tyumen, the death of 31 people - lasted a couple of days in the tops of the news. Obviously, they will forget about him in the same way as they forgot about the disaster with the Yak-42D near Yaroslavl in September 2011, when 44 people were killed, including the Lokomotiv hockey team almost in full force. The cause of the autumn tragedy, the International Aviation Committee indicated that "the organization of flight work and the flight safety management system at the Yak Service airline was absent." As a result, pilots accustomed to flying on the Yak-40, just put their feet on the Yak-42 pedals. As a result, when it was necessary to quickly gain a height, it took, as written in the conclusion of the poppy, “pushing the brake pedals”, and the plane could not dial the speed necessary for takeoff. Bottom line: 39 people died when the plane hit the ground, three drowned, two (including one later in the hospital) died of burns incompatible with life. Mack alone did not explain in his conclusion: how is the company “Yak Service”, in which, as we now know, there was no “flight safety management system”, received the operator’s certificate in 2010, and in 2011, a month before the disaster, did this certificate confirmed the Federal Air Transport Agency? However, how - obviously, the only question is how many zeros were in this “how”.

The ATR-72 aircraft who died under Tyumen was foreign production and it seems not old, and the UTAIR company is not the Yak Service couple and in the number of liners in the property and in terms of transportation, that is, I earned enough money to comply with safety rules. However, according to the reports that have already leaked to the media, the plane collapsed due to the fact that its case was not sufficiently treated with anti-oscillative fluid. Saved? Were too lazy? Did you stole this very liquid? Those 31 that went into the ground, is neither hot or cold from the answer option. Then there will be the conclusion of Mac, there will be loud words about the price of human life and formidable conclusions. AND -? Last year, the specialized international consulting agency, based on data from disasters, came to the conclusion that Russia is the most dangerous country in the world for air passengers, two years before, the European Commission also came to a similar conclusion. AND -? As a country in which they once sang: “First of all, the first thing, the planes, but the girls later” and where the world-famous aviation KB-Ilyushin, Antonov, Tupolev, Yakovleva, became the leader in the number of plane crash (only in 2011, not counting helicopters, 133 people died), the New Times asked the founder of the group of companies CASCOL, specializing in business in the field of aviation technologies, the co -owner of DEXTER, providing Avtaxi services, Sergey Nedorogorolev Do you understand why the plane crashed under Tyumen now? ** It would be better to wait for the commission’s conclusions, but the version that is reported is similar to the truth. The ATR-72, which is made by Italians with the French, is reliable, similar to our An-24, that is, it has a straight wing, low landing speed, good flight qualities. But of course, any ice, any frost, dirt on the wings is always bad, it can sharply reduce the lifting force of the wing, on any machines it is dangerous. When I fly in winter, I always watch how to pour the plane with anti -oscillative liquid: if they don’t save, I can be watered abundantly, and if I see that for a checkmark, I’m going back to the airportway.

"

When I fly in winter, I always watch how to pour the plane with anti -oscillative liquid: if they don’t save, they are watered abundantly - I fly, and if I see that for a checkmark, I’m going back to the airportway

"

April 2, 2012 ATR-72 crash under Tyumen

Man and car, that is, the same human factor that killed 44 people in September near Yaroslavl? In aviation, catastrophes, as a rule, occur in the addition of several factors: weather conditions, technology failure, human actions. There (at the ATR-72) the pilot was young, and these planes were exploited not so long ago as it was in the case of yaks, which means that the raid on this type of cars was small and probably acted according to the instructions. But man - yes, this is always the weakest link in aviation. A person can direct the plane into a thunderstorm when no car (that is, the on-board computer.-The New Times), if she has data about the weather, the density of the front, in principle, he will not fly there, but a person can see some hole and decide that he will pass. And it will pass in 99% of cases, but in one will not pass. The car does not have this. If you put her priorities - the safety of three hundred passengers, then she will work out this program, she will not see how much she will spend. She doesn’t have a mission, the main thing, like military pilots, say, there people give each other an oath that they are ready to die for the execution of this mission. And in civil aviation, security is in the first place.

Judging by the report of the poppy regarding the disaster with the Yak-42-no, it is not worth it. Yak-42 is a good car, and the pilots, judging by the flight of the watch, were experienced, and there are all sorts of instructions. But we can violate the instructions when we believe that we are above the instructions. On that yak, the commander probably decided that it was possible to take off, despite the fact that a speech informant or red button probably showed that the speeds were not enough and it would be necessary to turn on emergency braking. But he decided to come off. For example, the Swiss pilot, no matter how experienced, does not allow the mentality to deviate from the instructions, which is clearly spelled out on the basis of experience, which has been developed by many, many generations. So he looked, such and such a speed, we did not take off, emergency braking. All. Dot. And at that airfield in Yaroslavl strip 3 km, you can fly up three times, and the commander thought: I’ll take off. By the way, they would have taken off and fly away if it were not for the mast of the antenna, which was touched by the wing. But a person is not a computer. This is the weakest element really. As a result, if you analyze disasters, then in most cases a human factor will be. Another question is that on modern aircraft there is what is called “Protection from a fool”: for example, a computer that will not allow pressure on the brakes on take -off, while increasing the traction of the engines; There is no such thing on the Yak-42.

So, the problem is also that the cars fly: in the list of dead aircraft for 2011 - the ancient "carcasses", Ana, Yaki? The plane does not have such a thing: young, old. It can be a flight fit or not. Once I had to fly with a comrade - we took Piper Cherokee: he was 1964. And I was born in 1963. That is, he was made a year later. But he has a new engine, some ribs were removed, checked with ultrasound, ready for flight work, his calendar-there is such a thing-did not end. You can fly. And it happens that you have a working detail, you removed it, looked - normal. But she exhausted the appointed resource, and you throw it out. So, if the plane in the calendar, if its spare parts are not counterfeit, if they have proper forms, they are properly certified, properly mounted by qualified personnel, then age does not matter.

September 9, 2011 Yak-42 crash near Yaroslavl

You said: "If not counterfeit details, if there are certificates." The company "Yak Service" had a operator’s certificate from the Federal Air Transport Agency, despite the fact that back in 2009, according to the results of an audit of the European Aviation Security Agency (EASA), it took the last place in the security rating of Russian airlines. What guarantees can be in the conditions of our wild and widespread corruption? Putting a counterfeit part on the plane is a crime. And, in fact, the decision to withdraw license from 16 airlines

* * According to the then Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, now 127 airlines are working in Russia; 16 airlines were canceled by the operator’s certificate, three suspended, six carriers are forbidden to fly to the European Union countries. Izvestia, November 24, 2011, including Yak Service, shows that there is a problem. You see, if the company has three aircraft, with 50-seater, on which it flies, and I know this topic, three people, in principle, they cannot pay off. Because you have one plane or twenty, you still need equipment, service service, etc., that is, overhead costs for one or three aircraft are unbearable. Consequently, either the owner covers debts, or these people exist, including by saving on counterfeit details, which cost three times cheaper than certified. Plus, it is not known what quality is the military unit ... I was a shareholder of two airlines, now the shareholder DEXTER, this is aircraft tacks, we are flying from Tuva, for example, to Krasnoyarsk, we have a full plane, but this is eight people. And before us they put a 50-seater-well, there are no so many passengers from Tuva.

And how do you cover the costs? We made it simply: the Tuvan authorities asked us to establish a message, and we came with accounting books, everyone opened, showed, there is nothing complicated, we have a transparent, almost public company, and we said: “You see, there should be so much subsidies here so that we fly from at least 2% of profit. We cannot less. It will be your decision. ” They made a decision: albeit expensive, but they need us to fly. We have eight aircraft - and this is a loss -making story so far. But we, shareholders, are growing the cost of the company, and therefore we cover losses: we want to buy another 25 aircraft, we have already made a request for 10.

That is, the government’s decision to allow regular flights only to companies that have at least 10 aircraft, and since 2013-at least 20 cars, correct? Absolutely. This will stimulate the companies to unite, reduce overhead costs.

However, for your small aircraft you buy Swiss or Canadian cars, the state Aeroflot and Transaero-American Boeing and European Aerobas, and Russian aircraft factories moan, produce one or two cars a year, and even then old models, because there are no money to develop new money. Is it right too? Firstly, we started in DEXTER on our machines-M-101, I invested in their certification and launch in mass production at the aircraft factory, where I was a shareholder. But then they created a combined aircraft manufacturing corporation, it united the plants and decided to not produce a car less than 50-seater. And then DEXTER bought the Swiss Pilatus from the company, which produces them 120 pieces per year, and has already released 1100 in total, and they have the number of breakdowns in relation to the cream hours of the minimum. And for any airline, the worst is when the planes are idle on the ground: they cost crazy money, and the money is taken under the percentage of the bank and it must be given.

Now as for wide -body aircraft. Here you will put a jar with Coca-Cola and a jar with an unknown drink issued by anyone unknown to anyone, well, for example, “Clean Cola”. What will you drink? You know about Coca-Cola that it is produced by billions of standard quality cans, which means that the process is debugged, its capitalization is $ 56 billion-this brand costs so much, and its owners will not allow the brand cost to save, for example, on sanitary standards. Airlines adhere to the same logic, the same Aeroflot: so that people buy his tickets, they must be sure that his planes are both reliable and comfortable. And in order for them to be reliable, the company must produce many aircraft: because when you produce 400 aircraft a year, you already have all the services, the quality is debugged, they are the same. When you make one aircraft a year, two, three, four - this is all a manual assembly, like a handmade clock. They look beautiful, but it is better to keep them in the closet, because they are not made in order to determine the time on them, but to show them, and they must constantly be twisted. So, Boeing and Airobus are produced by 500 aircraft per year.

"

A plane is a product with one of the highest additional costs: if you put it in a stove and melt it, you will receive $ 50 thousand for it, and it costs $ 30-50 million, because the most expensive in it is a thought

"

All these machines: from the famous "corner" An-2 to the superload "Mriya"-history. Those aircraft that are still flying will soon be disabled

On the sidelines of the market , but we also produced the silts, that and so on. In our sense in the USSR, 15 thousand aircraft were produced - this amounted to 25% of the world aircraft industry. This included “Annushki”, and huge trucks like “Ruslan” and “Mriya”. 1,500 pieces were released by the same Tu-134-that is, a real product, respectively, and all services were debugged. But then our passenger traffic was 140 million a year, and in 1989 he began to fall and in the mid-1990s fell to 20 million. The planes stood up because there was no one to carry. And there was no one to carry, because people did not have money. And since the finished planes got up, then they stopped doing new ones - who would buy them? Now we will transport 50 million passengers a year. And only Luftansis - 90 million per year. And the largest US companies are transporting a billion. Billion! Therefore, when some deputy from the LDPR or the Communist Party shouts that we are the largest country in the world and therefore we have to be an aviation power, he should know that Africa is more than our country, but there are not flying on airplanes, because people who have money to pay for a ticket fly on airplanes. In other words, the number of passengers is strictly correlated from GDP per capita, and therefore a small Switzerland with a population of 7.6 million and more than $ 42 thousand. In a year of income, more income flies up more than all of Africa.

In short, in 1995, our aircraft industry stood up: ready-made aircraft idle in hangars were idle, the state did not have money to support the aircraft industry-barely enough for the maintenance of combat aircraft and missile production. But the most important thing is that the market disappeared: in the former republics of the USSR there was the same situation as ours. And abroad, our planes did not buy at the time of the USSR. It was possible to buy Tu-134 in the mid-1990s for $ 3 million-I bought it yourself, but to make a new one, it was necessary to have $ 30 million. The factories did not have cash, there was no money for salaries. And if mass production rises, therefore, there is no money to develop new aircraft. After all, the plane is a product with one of the highest additional costs: if you put it in the stove and melt it, you will receive $ 50 thousand for it, and it costs $ 30-50 million, because the most expensive in it is thought. And it is one thing when these thought costs are distributed into five cars manufactured, and another 400 each. And in order to compete in this market, you need to produce a lot of aircraft, otherwise they become gold. As it was with our IL-96. They did, but no one wanted to buy it. And today in the world there are two corporations that supply the world with wide -body aircraft: Airbus and Boeing. The first is European, the French and the Germans, and Spain, Italy, and UK, who always fought with each other, united here. They realized that one by one with the Americans, who in 1972, when the first Airbus was released, controlled 80% of the market, could not cope. And now Airbus has been ahead of Boeing, and they share the market 50 to 50.

That is, we are not in this market? In the market of wide -body aircraft - no.

And what will happen to our TU, yaks and so on? They will gradually dislike. You see, the same Aeroflot, he knows his costs-so many passengers, so many fuel costs, operation, etc. He takes statistics, looks: Airbus has readiness for flight, that is, the number of breakdowns for the amount of plaque, such and such, looks-what is the one? And buys Airbus. You answered him in response: "Are you not a patriot, are you not for the revival of Russia?" He replies: "I am a patriot after work, and at work I am in another business - I transfer passengers."

And these cars are also a story. Il-96 became the last Russian broad-minded machine: it was designed in 1980, went to the series in 1992. But no one wanted to buy it

Then why was the United Aircraft Corporation created? Just to correct the current situation. Now money has been invested in new machines with orientation to the global market-the SSJ family (dry superjet), a Russian regional aircraft, this is a 100-seater car that is actually designed in the Sukhoi design bureau and is produced at the UAC plants.

But you say that in the regions 50-seater aircraft do not pay off. This is if you fly inside the regions, on the so -called MVL - small air lines. SSJ fly between regions and countries. For example, the first buyer was the Armenian Airlines, they were also delivered to Aeroflot. Но выходить на европейский рынок региональных перевозок будет трудно: он сегодня уже поделен между канадской Bombardier и бразильской Embraer. Бразильской! А мы в середине 1990-х носились, писали записки премьеру Черномырдину: надо вкладываться в производство небольших, региональных самолетов!

И?.. Ее передали Новожилову — это был дважды Герой Социалистического Труда, гениальный авиаконструктор Генрих Васильевич Новожилов, который все «Ильюшины» делал, и сделал 350-местный Ил-86, когда Airbus еще в пеленках ходил. Генрих Васильевич мне сказал: «Слушай, ты такой молодой. Мы так надеялись после войны, когда делали 50-местные самолеты, что вот новое поколение придет и оно сделает 1000-местную машину. Мы тебе сейчас покажем». И он показывает обалденные эскизы — это то, что сейчас Boeing проектирует, то, что сделал Airbus 380… «А ты, — говорит, — записки пишешь про какие-то там самолеты на 50 мест, это что такое вообще?» А руководили в СССР всегда промышленностью технические люди. Для технического человека только одно интересно — сделать сложное техническое изделие. Я был акционером многих авиационных заводов, которые тогда приватизировали, — Иркутского, Нижегородского, Улан-Удэнского авиационного завода, Ростова-на-Дону: это были заводы, которые строили военную технику, но все пытались и на гражданский рынок выйти. Во главе них сидели потрясающие мужики, которые стали генеральными в 38 лет, а когда я с ними познакомился, им было уже по 60—70, и многие жили прошлыми победами. Я убеждал Владимира Федоровича Лаптева, который тогда был замминистра Авиапрома: если делать гражданскую машину, давайте сделаем одну, может даже по лицензии, но такую, которая будет продаваться, и тогда она вытянет за собой все остальное. И с директорами, с кем мог, говорил. А они мне: «Серег, когда ты меня похоронишь, делай чего хочешь на заводе. Но пока ты меня не похоронил — все, отстань, ты — акционер, что ты в самолетах понимаешь?» Я 14 лет прождал, потом акции продал. Вот поэтому компаниями в мире руководят экономисты. Сталин хотел технического превосходства, а не экономического — он ставил во главе компаний конструкторов. Наши конструкторы, они привыкли к тому, что финансовая мощь их компаний шла от государства. А «Боингом» всегда руководили экономисты, которые понимали: важно быть не лучшим в своей сфере бизнеса. Важно быть первым. Поэтому Airbus стал номером один, и «Боинг» стал номером один, а у них, может быть, не самые лучшие самолеты, а Ил-96 — лучше, но его никто не делает, и он в итоге умер. А в результате, пытаясь соревноваться на рынке широкофюзеляжных самолетов, мы проморгали и рынок региональных машин.

Другими словами, у нашего SSJ уже никаких шансов на мировом рынке? У нас и в стране есть где летать. У нас сообщение организовано следующим образом: есть 8–10 больших хабов — портов, между которыми все и летают. В результате, чтобы из Владивостока прилететь в Иркутск, надо сначала полететь прямым рейсом в Москву, а потом из Москвы прямым рейсом в Иркутск. Поэтому бизнесменам, которым надо перелететь из Владивостока в Иркутск, дешевле вызвать из Китая самолет, чем летать через Москву. Наконец, помимо сообщений между хабами и внутри регионов есть еще местные авиалинии. Вот с этим у нас совсем плохо. Между тем давно известно: если ты хочешь, чтобы в регион пришли инвестиции, необходимы три вещи. Первое — это аэродром, второе — это прямой рейс откуда-то, необязательно из Нью-Йорка, но хоть откуда-то прямой рейс, и третье — это гостиница. И все эти три компонента требуют поначалу дотаций: так практически везде в мире. Но если в регион можно добраться и есть где переночевать, то туда поедут инвесторы, начнут строить заводы, создавать рабочие места. А у нас количество аэродромов сокращается стремительно. Посмотрите карту США: 15 тыс. аэропортов, и они продолжают вбухивать в инфраструктуру деньги. А у нас смотришь на карту — 300 аэродромов, и все. Это одно из важнейших свойств государства — умение поддерживать собственную инфраструктуру, и не заниматься коммерцией, не лезть в бизнес, а вот на инфраструктуру — тратить деньги.

"

В США 15 тыс. аэропортов, и они продолжают вбухивать в инфраструктуру деньги. А у нас смотришь на карту — 300 аэродромов, и все

"

Защита от дураков Однако дураки, из-за которых гибнут люди, и дороги, с помощью которых создаются состояния, остаются нашей главной отличительной чертой. Рано или поздно это начнет меняться. Потому что мы живем не на острове — в мире. Как вы думаете, кто во Франции устанавливает стандарты безопасности для Airbus? Officials? Министерство? Да нет, конечно: саморегулирующиеся организации, куда входят те, чей бренд стоит много десятков миллиардов долларов. Они выдвигают эти стандарты, которые становятся стандартами для всей отрасли: им подчиняются и большие компании, и средние, и маленькие, выпускающие, скажем, нормали — крепежи, то есть болты и гайки. А в авиации это очень важно, чтобы уровень качества был одинаково высоким на всех этапах создания и эксплуатации самолета. Когда стандарты задают сами промышленники, как тот же французский союз машиностроителей, которые боятся потерять капитализацию своего бренда, это сильно отличается от ГОСТов чиновников. Объединенные в саморегулирующиеся общественные организации, неся ответственность за то, что происходит в отрасли, промышленники не допустят, чтобы какая-то там «Булгария» вышла в рейс с неопорожненными баками. Потому что история с затонувшей «Булгарией», в результате чего погибли десятки людей, — это ударило бы по всему бизнесу, нанесло бы ущерб всему флоту. Отрасль просто выкинула бы такую компанию из бизнеса. И «Як Сервис» выкинула бы еще тогда, когда европейская комиссия назвала эту компанию опасной для пассажиров. А пока каждый сам за себя и сам по себе, а стандарты определяют чиновники, и какому бизнесу жить, а какому умереть — тоже они, то мы и будем существовать от катастрофы до катастрофы.