Russian Airlines Don’t Want To Hear About Aircraft ‘Defects’

12

Russian airlines are reportedly asking employees to stop logging aircraft defects so it can keep flying the defective planes. The Moscow Times says a worker told the Russian language investigative publication Proekt the policy has been in effect for about a year “to prevent aircraft from being grounded due to a defect, which, according to regulations, prohibits the aircraft from flying until it is fixed.” The publication said the practice is common in all airlines.

It quoted a pilot as saying a recurring fuel leak on Boeing 737 didn’t get logged but mechanics knew about it. “The Russian attitude of betting on good luck also exists in aviation,” the pilot is quoted as saying. “Obviously, it’s frightening to fly on hope alone, but unfortunately, that’s what’s happening in many airlines in the country today.” Sanctions against Russia over the invasion of Ukraine have cut off the supply of parts to airlines operating Western aircraft and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach only goes so far. Estimates suggest about 20 percent of those planes are being grounded every year.

Russ Niles
Russ Niles is Editor-in-Chief of AVweb. He has been a pilot for 30 years and joined AVweb 22 years ago. He and his wife Marni live in southern British Columbia where they also operate a small winery.

Other AVwebflash Articles

12 COMMENTS

    • Why don’t You go to russia (without a capital r, as deserved), Mr. Lewis M and stay there?

    • That was an interesting report. I didn’t know about those problems. It is interesting that 737NGs tend to break apart at those junctions.

  1. I’ve probably missed the point, but I call Stones and Glass houses. We (US 121 carriers) could do better in the safety reporting as well.

    It’s completely legal for a US carrier to dispatch from the US to Latin and South American destinations in mountainous terrain with ESL controllers, single runway, one PACK deferred, volcanic ash advisory in the area, with no alternate (and consequent fuel) required if the TAF is good.

    1) “Fuel? We don’t need no stinkin fuel!”

    2) Kevin the accountant from “The Office” would say – “Gas heavy, costs more carry”.

    3) Soup (Gas) Nazi (dispatcher) would say “No Gas for You!”.

    This is NOT my personal experience. But, I know a guy, that knew a guy, who’s sisters nephew is a 121 captain that routinely uses that authority to add fuel and since said guy likes his job he can’t point out that it causes phone calls and emails and ASAP, NASA, and Safety reports which he claims are a pain in the arse, but he claims, for all of our boisterous claims of “safer than driving on I-95”, the US and can do better as well.

    One (stolen) parting shot since I’m on a roll:

    P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
    M: Almost replaced left inside main tire.

  2. A Final decision to take an ACFT remains with the Captain. Sometimes this may be legal but not smart. This is why the Captain gets paid the big bucks.

  3. So you’re saying that because the US aviation safety systems (best in the world with an incredible record of success) are not yet 100% perfect – we are in no position to point out obvious, egregious flaws in the systems of any other nation? Okay, got it. Thanks.

    • I was just venting Craig. But i would say that not requiring a designated alternate in the circumstances I described is the definition of egregious. Guatemala much?

  4. Back in the early 1990’s when Russian aviation was deregulated after Peristrokia, a friend of mine worked in Russia. He was a private pilot but could figure out when things were not right.
    Some of his experiences.

    1) Aircraft lands long and fast departs end of runway into gravel. Crew powers out and makes it to ramp. No inspection of aircraft before it takes off

    2) Aircraft lines up and starts takeoff run with the wing covered in snow

    3) Aircraft makes intermediate stop. APU won’t start so can’t start main engines. Airport will only provide a GPU if paid in cash first. Captain goes down isle with hat upside down so passengers can “contribute” to GPU costs or plane doesn’t leave

    4) Plane is 2 hours out of Moscow when Captain makes a PA that Moscow is zero zero in fog and they don’t have enough fuel to divert if they can’t get in. If they stop for fuel there is no guarantee that fuel will be available. Captain asks for a Vote ???!!! from passengers, continue or land early and risk no fuel. Vote is continue and they get to Moscow which is still fogged in. They do an approach and the passenger sees runway lights just as they touch down.

    Life is cheap in Russia, nobody cares if a airliner crashes.

LEAVE A REPLY