Incident with Azerbaijani Plane Raises Questions About Russia's Crisis Response

The downing of an Azerbaijani passenger plane over Grozny on December 26, 2024, has drawn significant attention, raising serious concerns about Russia's crisis management. The investigative outlet Baza, known for its access to insider information, recently published transcripts of conversations between Russian air traffic controllers and the crew of the ill-fated plane. These records, released ahead of the official investigation report, present a contentious narrative: the crew of the damaged plane allegedly refused emergency landings at Russian airports, choosing instead to land in Aktau, Kazakhstan, which supposedly absolves Russia of responsibility. The revelations have reignited debates as experts point to potential failures in Russia's response and its role in exacerbating the situation.

Pilot Decisions Under Crisis Conditions

The Azerbaijani Embraer 190, carrying 62 passengers and piloted by Captain Igor Kshnyakin, entered Chechen airspace at 7:36 AM, shortly after contacting Grozny air traffic control. By this time, the aircraft's navigation systems were reportedly disabled due to interference from Russian electronic warfare (EW) systems. These systems, designed to disrupt adversary communications and navigation, may have inadvertently compromised the plane's safety.

Despite multiple attempts to land in Grozny, the pilots, unaware of the external disruption to their navigation systems, failed to stabilize the aircraft. The situation worsened when the plane was reportedly struck by an anti-aircraft missile, severely damaging its tail and wing. Fuel leaks and the loss of critical control mechanisms, including the elevator, added to the danger.

Aviation experts, including veteran pilot Andrey Litvinov, likened the loss of elevator control to a car losing its steering while in motion. The pilots faced the near-impossible task of maintaining stability with compromised navigation and communication systems.

Russia's air traffic management has come under scrutiny for its response—or lack thereof. The transcripts reveal that the captain repeatedly requested permission to land at North Caucasus airports, emphasizing the critical nature of the situation. Despite these pleas, effective assistance was not provided. The plane remained in Russian airspace for 1 hour and 25 minutes, and even 45 minutes after the missile strike, no action was taken to deactivate the EW systems, lift the "Kover" closed airspace protocol, or guide the aircraft out of the signal jamming zone.

Furthermore, it appears the true condition of the plane, including the suspected missile strike and disabled navigation systems, was concealed from the crew. Instead, Russian authorities initially relied on alternative explanations, such as bird strikes and oxygen tank malfunctions, to downplay external factors.

Some experts argue these omissions were deliberate, potentially aimed at hiding evidence of the missile strike. The lack of clear communication and operational support left the crew with no choice but to divert the plane away from dangerous Russian territory.

Escape to Aktau: A Calculated Risk

Faced with a loss of control and unreliable information from Russian air traffic controllers, Captain Igor Kshnyakin decided to redirect the plane to Aktau, Kazakhstan. The decision not to fly to Baku was likely driven by fears that the plane could be attacked again in order to hide evidence of a missile strike on Grozny. The route over the Caspian Sea may also have given Russian authorities a false sense of security, assuming the plane would crash into the water, erasing all evidence.

Analysts suggest the choice was influenced by the unobstructed terrain over the Caspian Sea and the steppes surrounding Aktau, as well as apparent distrust of Russian authorities. Transcripts make it clear that Kshnyakin stopped relying on Russian air traffic services, which were aware of the true situation but failed to provide necessary assistance. The pilot, well aware of the risks, demonstrated extraordinary professionalism in prioritizing the safety of passengers and crew under seemingly insurmountable odds.

Notably, the distress signal was sent to Kazakh, not Russian, air traffic controllers, marking a critical turning point. Kazakhstan’s air traffic services received the signal at 9:02 AM, highlighting the crew's complete loss of trust in Russian aviation authorities. Litvinov praised Kshnyakin’s exceptional professionalism, noting that his critical decisions placed passenger safety above all else.

Fallout and Unanswered Questions

The incident highlights broader concerns about operational transparency and crisis management protocols in Russia. The use of electronic warfare in civilian airspace and the lack of adequate support for a distressed aircraft have drawn condemnation from aviation experts and international observers.

Questions remain about whether the incident's impact could have been mitigated—or avoided altogether—had Russian authorities acted differently. As investigations continue, attention will likely focus on Russia's handling of the situation. For now, the release of conflicting information through outlets like Baza appears to be an attempt to deflect responsibility and pressure Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan into accepting Russia's narrative of limited liability.