“THERE WERE CASES WHEN THERE WERE A WHOLE PLANE FROM THE REMAINS OF AN AIRPLANE HAD TO BE FEATURED AGAIN”
Oleg Mikhailovich, why do you think the Boeing pilots did nothing when the plane was diving for 20 seconds?
The commission continues to work; not all data from the parametric “black box” recorder has yet been deciphered. It was a big nuisance that the second recorder, the second “black box” was without a cassette. Therefore, we must wait until the end of the commission’s investigation. But it’s really strange why the crew, firstly, allowed a very steep climb with an angle of 25 degrees, which is non-standard. Secondly, why did he first take measures to prevent the speed from falling further, and then, when the plane began to descend and it stopped falling, why didn’t he do anything further? Why he did not take the plane out of this dive remains a mystery. Only deciphering the means of objective control can reveal this secret.
Could it have been due to the fact that the pilots did not have much experience, because one was a flight mechanic in the past, the other was a navigator?
There may be several parameters that need to be taken into account when discussing this episode. Perhaps the insufficient level of crew training had an impact. But we can talk about this in the affirmative when we are convinced that, suppose, the control of the elevator, with the help of which the plane is brought out of a dive, did not fail. Now, if this is firmly established by the commission, then it will be possible to talk about the role of the crew in this matter. So far it’s 50/50. In fact, this is a very serious question, the study of which can be very difficult and lengthy. There have been cases when a whole plane had to be reassembled from the remains of an aircraft in a hangar in order to check every part that was of interest to the commission.
As you know, there was no magnetic tape in the second “black box”; it was found much later. Does this happen?
No, this is not a common occurrence. I would even say strange. Because the most common problem is when the recorders simply become fried as a result of a large, intense fire. Why don't they burn? Because the recording is in a fireproof capsule, but is baked by the temperature, and it is impossible to decipher it. But just like that, for them to open it, but there is no cassette there - this is something incomprehensible for me, for a professional. After all, the recorder is the only place where objective information about the incident, without journalists’ speculations, is hidden.
- They say that this cassette could fly out from the impact. Could this happen?
Anything can happen from such a blow.
RUSSIA HAS SHIFTED TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND FOREIGN EQUIPMENT BY DEFAULT
- How do you assess the training of pilots in our country?
As a result of the lack of personnel policies on the part of government regulators over the past 20 years, we have come to a very dismal conclusion - a shortage of pilots. This is the most terrible antagonist in flight safety. So the officials managed to make a mistake here, together with the airlines. And this is in the presence of the widest range of government pilots educational institutions! Those who led to such a paradoxical situation must be dismissed from all positions without the right to return to civil aviation. And they, in order to save their jobs, came up with the initiative to change the Russian Air Code, allowing Western pilots to fly as part of Russian crews. This means that the same government officials are again throwing themselves into a tailspin because they contradict the instructions of the president of the country. We are taking away jobs from our citizens, and some of them! The highest paid from the most high-tech industry. This issue is currently being debated, and the desire to save one's skin by doing nothing for 20 years is understandable. But this solution is also not a panacea, because ship commander is a profession in short supply in all countries of the world. Who will come to us when they are in demand everywhere? Those who are not in demand at home will go. Alcoholics and professionally insolvent persons. So they will come.
- So is it possible to fly airplanes now from a safety point of view?
Not only is it possible, but it is necessary. Don't give in to aerophobia. In general, there is not a single type of activity where at least one person does not die. Yes, in recent years our aviation has looked very faded. But there are systemic reasons for this. It's not about crews or personalities. The point is the ineffective vertical of government regulatory bodies, which are not responsible for anything, including flight safety. They are not involved in the development of Russian aviation.
You and I have moved into a new era - the era of total exploitation of Western technology and Western aircraft. At the same time, there was not a single government decision, not a single “road map”, not a single government document stating that in 2013 we will fly only Western technology. But orders were sent to all ministries and departments to retrain crews and engineers, to repurpose factories for repairing Western equipment. Everyone who serves and who flies was given the task of learning English, because technical literature is only available in English language, and it is prohibited for translation. There was not a single document providing for all this - everything happened by default. This main reason the fact that we have fallen in flight safety over the past three years to the level of Africa.
We are the only country in the world where one organization handles both certification and investigation of flight accidents. That is, she investigates herself. There are no other states like this. It's not about the details, but about the fundamental reasons that led our civil aviation to such a sad result.
Reference
Oleg Smirnov- President of the Infrastructure Development Fund air transport"Partner civil aviation" Higher education. The main specialty is a pilot of military and civil aviation. Mastered more than 10 types aircraft. Honored Pilot of the USSR. He gained initial experience in civil aviation in the Kazakh civil aviation department, progressing from a ship commander to the position of head of an airline. In 1973, he was appointed first deputy head of the Latvian Civil Aviation Administration, then head of the Estonian Civil Aviation Administration. In 1983, by decree of the USSR government, he was appointed to the post of Deputy Minister of Civil Aviation of the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he became the general representative of Aeroflot in Finland. Then - work in an aircraft leasing company and 6 years - in the East Line group of companies. Currently, he is the President of the Civil Aviation Partner air transport infrastructure development fund.
In Moscow, at the Oktyabr cinema, the premiere of the film “Crew” took place - it will be released in wide release on April 21. A film event of this magnitude has not happened in Russia for a long time.
The guests of the premiere left after the show - by one in the morning. Among them were the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky, Director of the Cinematography Department of the Ministry of Culture Vyacheslav Telnov, Head of the Union of Cinematographers Nikita Mikhalkov, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture Stanislav Govorukhin, Deputy General Director VGTRK Anton Zlatopolsky (the film is presented by the channel "Russia 1"), head of the Gorky Film Studio Sergei Zernov, editor-in-chief of the channel "Culture" Sergei Shumakov, directors Oleg Tabakov, Vladimir Menshov, Vladimir Khotinenko, Valery Todorovsky, Alexander Mitta, actors Vladimir Mashkov, Danila Kozlovsky, Svetlana Svetlichnaya, Nadezhda Mikhalkova, composers Igor Krutoy, Igor Nikolaev and many others.
But some of the most dear guests of the premiere are Orenburg Airlines pilots Konstantin Parikozha and Dmitry Alkeev, who, having landed a faulty plane, thanks to which they managed to save hundreds of lives. After the film, during which the audience kept shouting “This can’t be true!”, the RG columnist talked to the pilots and asked them what was true and what was not, and what their impressions of the premiere were.
What we saw on the screen - how reliable was it?
Konstantin Parikozha: What point are you interested in?
"Refueling" with people in the air. It seemed to me that it was unreal. Could this happen, at least theoretically?
Konstantin Parikozha: It’s hard to do this, of course. In-flight refueling exists and occurs in the same way - the planes line up "in the back." As a rule - in the army and in military aviation- on long-range aircraft. They have one without landing. And as for people...
Dmitry Alkeev: I think if there had been training, they would have been able to do this.
And when a plane takes off from a burning point on a short runway, what becomes possible only thanks to a fallen water tower - is this real?
Dmitry Alkeev: This is all absolutely correct. Agree! This is the most believable moment in this movie.
We all remember how, when a volcano erupted in Iceland, planes stopped flying because volcanic ash getting into the engine led to disaster. And in the film, a plane with ash in the engine flies for quite a long time.
Dmitry Alkeev: It happens. Depends on the amount of ash. One engine got hit a lot, it immediately turned off, and the other was damaged, but continued to work.
When you landed a plane in the Dominican Republic and saved the lives of hundreds of passengers, did you emotionally experience something similar to what the actors played in the film?
Konstantin Parikozha: Of course, there was tension. But for us this only happened for 20 minutes. And in the film it is spread out over two hours. Not as many events happened in life as with this crew. So these heroes are much more heroic than us. For us, everything was fleeting and not so bright and colorful. And the volcano did not explode.
However, you also felt that you might not make it...
Konstantin Parikozha: We were above the airport, next to each other.
Dmitry Alkeev: Our luck factor was higher. But it’s scary, of course. Some internal reserves are activated, emotions fade into the background and you do what you have to do.
Can a trainee in such a difficult situation be entrusted with a plane with people?
Konstantin Parikozha: And there was no one else to trust.
Have you seen the old movie "Crew"? Which movie evoked a stronger feeling?
Konstantin Parikozha: Of course I watched! The new film is more colorful and modern. Although now we are in the era of the return of old Soviet cinema and we need to play on high level to match it.
Dmitry Alkeev: You know what they say: the songs you heard in childhood are more valuable than those you hear later. Of course, the old “Crew” is closer to me. But the effects and colors that I saw in the new film are, of course, impressive.
What films about your profession, besides “Crew,” do you like? I remembered the recent film "Christmas Trees", where the plane suddenly lands on an old runway, which was miraculously preserved through the efforts of one person. And it's based on a true story.
Konstantin Parikozha: The best aviation film for me is "Mimino". I think many will agree with me.
Dmitry Alkeev:“I’m going into a storm,” “Allow takeoff,” “Mimino” are excellent films.
When you come home after the premiere, what will you tell your loved ones?
Dmitry Alkeev (laughs):"Are you a pilot?" “Sometimes. Actually, I’m an endocrinologist” (quote from the film “Mimino” - Note by S.A.).
Konstantin Parikozha: I can honestly say that I liked the film and I recommend going to see it. In any case, all aviators will go to the film - one hundred percent. If only for the sake of checking its authenticity: a fairy tale is not a fairy tale. But this is not a documentary film and is not based on real events. We need to build on this and understand that it is still better to evaluate the picture comprehensively. There is a lot here - both relationships and feelings. And there is no need to focus on the technical side of this film. She's like a background. This is absolutely not the main thing in the picture. And for this I am grateful to the creators - I really liked the film.
Dmitry Alkeev:"Thank you!"
Konstantin Parikozha: And let us express our gratitude for their skill and ability to convey the realities of our work.
What is worth clarifying from the very beginning: the film “Crew” by Nikolai Lebedev is not a remake of the 1979 film of the same name, but an independent work. The film tells a story about the choice between following instructions, taking care of one’s own safety and saving those who have no one else to rely on. If your success, position, career, health or life are at stake, will you risk it all just to help out strangers? The heroes of the film “Crew” made their choice.
Plot of the film
Alexey Gushchin is a young talented pilot who has already lost his job three times because of his principles. All he needs is the sky, the ability to fly, but fate puts various villains in his path, powerful of the world this, for disobedience to which Alexei constantly faces the same punishment.
The last chance for him is to become an intern in a small airline under the strict boss Leonid Zinchenko.
Leonid acts according to the letter of the instructions, although the fire of struggle for truth also burns inside him. It is for these two and several other crew members that an ordinary flight will turn into a battle for life, where all that can save them is coherence, professionalism and the ability to make the right choice.
First, I would like to note that the 6+ label does not suit the film at all. There are non-graphic, but frequent and unfair deaths of good characters, since the film still belongs to the “disaster film” genre; bed scene; a scene that sneakily depicts the intimacy of an adult woman cheating on her husband with a young man old enough to be her son. So let’s say right away that despite the overall positive meaning of the film, it should not be viewed by persons under 14 years of age.
There are several important points to note in the film "Crew":
- The general meaning is the correct choice to care for your neighbor, even at risk (+)
- Indifference to awards, striving for goodness for the soul, and not for the sake of “stars on shoulder straps” (+)
- The importance of family before work (+)
- Conflict between Alexey and Leonid – following the rules, subordination (+/-)
- Image of a sports person (+/-)
- Image of women (–)
The general meaning is the right choice to care for your neighbor even at risk to yourself (+)
The main characters face this in the first half of the film: when Alexey and Leonid got to Africa during the coup d’etat, they were only able to take foreign citizens, and the Africans who tried to break on board were shot by the invaders before their eyes. Leonid restrains Alexei, who intends to do something about this situation. Leonid refers to the law and the situation in which they find themselves, Alexey refers to emotions.
In the second half of the film, the crew responds to a request for evacuation and they rush to help, and after realizing that some of the victims are stranded in the mountains, they split up to help both those nearby and those in the mountains. When Leonid tries to dissuade Alexey from the idea of separation, he says through his teeth, “So what’s up?!”
In fact, the comparison is not entirely correct, because in the event of resistance in the situation with Africans, two Russian non-military pilots would most likely receive a piece of lead and would not be able to help the remaining passengers get out of the war zone. In addition, the flight attendants and passengers would be brought to certain death. Perhaps they would also have caused an international scandal and served as the beginning of hostilities between the two countries. So those actions of the pilots, based on the situation shown in the film, were justified.
At the same time, whether it is permissible for screenwriters to create situations in cinema (in cases where the film is not based on real events) in which a positive hero is forced to be a passive witness to the scene of the execution of civilians is a controversial issue.
And yet the meaning remains the same: if you can help, even if you break the prescribed rules, strive for this, since the importance of human life is much more important than the laws prescribed for regular situations.
Another test of humanity that the main characters will face is to prove their willingness to risk their own lives for a just cause. Each of the main characters overcomes the fear of death in order to help their neighbor.
In one of the climactic scenes, Alexey, in order to carry out a risky maneuver to save the neighboring aircraft, asks the passengers for a unanimous opinion. One woman said no, citing that she had two children and could not put them in danger, but both of her children suddenly raised their hands, showing that they understood the situation and were willing to take risks to save other people (among them which was their aunt). Thus, children seem to set an example of morality and spiritual nobility.
Naturally, as a result, this risk paid off handsomely, because the aunt returned to the children, the sister returned to their mother, and in general everyone sat down peacefully on the ground.
To describe all the plots where each of the characters shows altruism, nobility of soul, heroism, we will have to retell the entire film, therefore we will simply note that the choice “me or others” in the direction of “others” is made by the majority of the main characters, someone receives a reward for this , someone doesn’t receive it, but this doesn’t change their mood or position in life. They do good not because they will receive encouragement for it, but because it is impossible otherwise.
What’s nice: the characters are not superheroes who, by the will of fate, received superpowers or inherited a lot of money. They are hard workers, faithful to their work, and also simply caring people who have not passed by someone else’s misfortune.
Indifference to awards, striving for goodness for the soul, and not for the sake of “stars on shoulder straps” (+)
Another distinctive feature of this film is that the main characters did not receive any material rewards or money, and for previous misdeeds they were kicked out of work, although they were helped in applying for another position. Their reward is moral. Alexey - resolved problems in his relationship with his beloved, steward Andrey - achieved his beloved's favor, Leonid - understood the importance of family before work.
The heroes are driven by completely non-mercantile interests, although they are in a difficult situation. Therefore, they did not seem to notice the lack of awards, continuing to live an ordinary life, preparing for the next flights, and perhaps the next exploits.
The importance of family before work (+)
Due to his intense work, Leonid has completely moved away from his family; he is not particularly interested in his son’s affairs and pays little attention to his wife. The events of the film force him to reconsider his attitude towards his family. In the finale, he invites everyone to go on a shared vacation together, relegating work to a well-deserved second place.
Conflict between Alexey and Leonid – following the rules, subordination (+/-)
The character of the main character Alexei himself is very contradictory and controversial. Yes, his integrity is commendable, but sometimes he behaves more stupidly than decently, except for the mentioned moment with refugees, he starts a fight with a company shareholder because he smoked on the plane.
He lost the job that his eminent father had given him three times, and would practically have lost it for the fourth time if not for the sincere respect and fatherly love of Captain Leonid - Alexey would have gone to work as a dishwasher. And it’s hard to imagine that every time Alexey faces such injustice, which he must fight with “fire and sword,” risking everything.
If he had been expelled once for refusing to comply with the tyranny of his superiors, this could still be understandable. But sometimes it seems that he really hasn’t grown up yet, as the heroine Alexandra told him. Especially considering that the film is aimed at children (despite the above-mentioned sex and death scenes), the example of an aggressive young tyrant who gets into trouble on every occasion where, in his opinion, injustice occurs, is partly destructive for the young viewer, cultivating an ideal sacrifice for various revolutionary, terrorist and other propaganda.
Image of a sports person, (+/-)
The image of Valera, the son of Leonid, is also very ambiguous. The guy is fond of street sports: he does not come home through the door, climbing through the window on the third floor. In his room there is a small horizontal bar and a boxing doll. Leonid expresses suspicion that at this rate Valera will soon drink and smoke, but the guy easily refutes this phrase. In fact, we have before us the image of not a professional athlete, but a fan of physical culture, quite possibly a supporter of a healthy lifestyle. And although the guy shows himself from the heroic side - namely, his physical abilities helped in many situations - the aftertaste from the fact that the sports guy is shown as a kind of unreasonable overgrown teenager still remains.
Image of women (-)
Unfortunately, the film's portrayal of women is a complete failure. There are two of them in the film, supposedly “for every taste,” but in essence they are a feminist and a frivolous girl. There were other types of women, but too little time was spent on them to even remember their names.
Alexandra.
The protagonist's beloved, described in the annotation as an unapproachable beauty. She's actually quite approachable, but what makes her special as a character is her hysterical feminism.
She openly says on camera that men are the worst kind, that only men always complain, and only men can do this and that, and most often she says this when Alexey is trying to find spiritual support from her.
The pilot Alexandra herself has an obsessive thought that when she says “I am the co-pilot - Alexandra,” they call her “the woman at the helm” and criticize her in every possible way. She is so fixated on this that she repeated this phrase to people in distress and waited a pause, apparently expecting attacks.
Naturally, they did not follow, and could not follow, because people were expecting the continuation of the instructions, and the pause that arose after this phrase was maliciously comic, ironic about her character, and not a certain moment of truth, no matter how the authors wanted to show it. Moreover, on screen Alexandra, in fact, was never subject to gender discrimination. On the contrary, she is selected as an experienced pilot, Leonid places more trust in Alexandra as a specialist than in Alexey, etc.
Moreover, given Alexei’s frequent quarrel with Alexandra, when she again becomes misogynistic at the moment of his attempt to reveal his soul, their couple clearly does not look durable. Despite the fact that at the end of the film the viewer was informed that they got married.
Victoria.
A pretty, caring stewardess, with whom steward Andrei is unrequitedly in love. At the first acquaintance with the new pilot Alexey, she looked at the dreaming Alexey from head to toe with her mouth slightly open and with a carnivorous gaze, and from then on she showed a kind of coquetry with him, simultaneously rudely rejecting Andrey’s obsessive courtship.
At the end of the film, the girl unexpectedly played out her own phrase to Andrei exactly the opposite, showing her favor from now on.
Did you really change your love so quickly? It turned out, no - it’s just that her lust, shown from the first frames, was aimed not at Alexei, but at his uniform, which was even indicated in one of the conversations of the flight attendants, who mention that for Vika there are no men except pilots.
Andrei, condemned by many heroes for unmanly work, did not seduce her heart until he became a hero. After this story, her great sympathy for one man quickly turned into “love” for another. Again, the durability of such an alliance between Andrei and Victoria raises vague doubts.
Movie:"Crew"
Director: Nikolay Lebedev
Scenario: Tikhon Kornev, Nikolay Kulikov, Nikolay Lebedev and others.
Producer: Leonid Vereshchagin, Anton Zlatopolsky, Nikita Mikhalkov
Starring: Danila Kozlovsky, Vladimir Mashkov, Agne Grudite, Sergei Kempo, Katerina Shpitsa and others.
Budget: 650,000,000 rub.
Premiere (world): April 21, 2016
Review:
I decided to go see “Crew” a couple of months ago, when I was hooked by the trailers I came across at every turn, promising the viewer something grandiose. The handsome Kozlovsky in the title role, the intriguing “from the creators of Legend No. 17” and the overwhelming concentration of action in the two-minute video did their job: I came to the cinema in anticipation of something impressive. And I’ll be honest, I wasn’t mistaken - domestic films have learned to impress.
I’m not a big fan of Russian cinema, but I love this format. Of course, one cannot help but notice that our directors are bent on a Hollywood scale, but this definitely attracts the viewer. In more than two hours we saw everything: explosions, walls of fire, people burning alive, lava spreading across the entire screen, a storm, a storm, fog - it seems that the filmmakers decided to impress as much as possible with the picture, and all this with 3D glasses! And at the head of all this graphic madness is the young pilot Alexey Gushchin - naturally, a hero, naturally, who saved everyone. Kozlovsky played him with an A plus, but the character himself, in my opinion, came out somewhat idealized: a kind of brave young man unshakable in spirit, who doesn’t care about the opinions of others and always boldly goes against the system. However, this type fit harmoniously into the plot and aroused everyone’s sympathy.
In addition to Kozlovsky, one cannot help but note the excellent performance of Mashkov (commander Leonid Zinchenko): he got the same image of a “severe coach” who changes under the influence of a “problem” student (doesn’t he resemble Tarasov from “Legend No. 17?”). In general, the entire cast deserves all praise, and the plot, although not surprising in its unpredictability, keeps the viewer in suspense and gives the opportunity to laugh at good jokes, for which special thanks to the scriptwriters, and, of course, to grieve at the tearful ones moments. The picture fully justifies the loud claim to be a “disaster film” (by the way, the disaster itself, in my humble opinion, was a little drawn out - the climax takes up a good half of the film). And there are certainly instructive conclusions: there is something to think about, something to rethink.
The film will appeal to the absolute majority, and, in general, it is worth watching (the stormy applause of the audience at the end of the screening is proof of this).
Oh yes. I don’t quite understand how “6+” crept into the description, because there are more than enough unchildishly tough moments in the film. So, if you are worried about the psyche of your little offspring, I do not recommend taking them with you. And everyone else - go ahead. You still have time to evaluate it.
Grade: 7 out of 10
Trailer:
