Azerbaijan Airlines plane crash near Aktau: Reconstruction of the disaster Minute-by-minute breakdown

Based on the analysis of Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) audio files from the Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL) Embraer-190 aircraft with registration number 4K-AZ65, we would like to highlight some of the crew’s decisions—decisions that were absolutely correct and made in response to the unfolding situation—regarding the choice of a destination after the emergency.

This particular aspect is now being exploited by Russian officials and media in an attempt to divert attention from the real causes of the tragedy. And those causes, we remind you, are clear: the Azerbaijani aircraft was struck by a Russian Pantsir-S air defence system, while electronic warfare (EW) systems completely disabled its GPS navigation. Moreover, the crew received no information from Russian air traffic controllers regarding any special operations or potential flight restrictions. Even after the dispatcher in Grozny belatedly received information about the "Carpet" protocol, he still failed to relay this crucial information to our crew.

Now let’s analyse the crew’s decisions

The chronological sequence of events in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time):

05:11:42 – The crew reports departure to Baku.
05:13:31 – According to CVR data, the sound of an impact is recorded, immediately followed by voice warnings from the autopilot (AUTO PILOT) and the automatic throttle control system (Throttle).
05:13:39 – According to FDR (Flight Data Recorder) data, cabin depressurization is recorded.
05:13:56 – According to CVR data, a second impact is recorded.
05:16:54 – The captain reports a strong impact and, citing the flight attendant, informs the dispatcher about seat destruction in the rear rows. He decides to proceed to Mineralnye Vody airport and requests meteorological information.
05:18:42 – The Grozny air traffic control dispatcher provides the crew with meteorological data for Mineralnye Vody airport.
05:20:48 – The crew reviews the weather report for Mineralnye Vody airport.

Explanation: Given the adverse weather conditions and the challenging terrain, which made safe flight operations difficult, the crew began considering the possibility of an emergency landing at other nearby airports.

05:23:11 – The crew reports that they are unable to comply with the dispatcher’s instructions and requests a specific heading to proceed to Makhachkala airport.
05:23:34 – The Grozny tower dispatcher provides the crew with meteorological data for Makhachkala airport.

Once again, it must be emphasised: Given the aircraft's control difficulties, the complex terrain, and rapidly changing weather conditions, the crew continued to evaluate alternative options.

05:28:01 – The captain decides to proceed to Baku.
05:28:01 – The captain confirms the continuation of the flight to Baku at the current altitude and requests route navigation.
05:34:04 – The Rostov Control dispatcher suggests Makhachkala airport as the nearest and technically more suitable alternative.
05:34:16 – The captain requests meteorological data for Baku airport.
05:34:57 – After receiving the weather report for Baku, the captain requests updated information for Makhachkala airport.
05:36:01 – After reviewing the updated meteorological data for Makhachkala, the captain rules out this option and confirms the decision to proceed to Baku.
05:39:53 – The captain requests meteorological information for Aktau airport.
05:41:30 – Upon receiving the weather report for Aktau and considering its favourable conditions and relative proximity, the captain decides to divert there.
05:42:40 – The captain informs the Rostov Air Traffic Control Centre of the decision to proceed to Aktau.

Following this, the crew establishes contact with the Aktau dispatcher and reports an emergency situation. They request vectoring (navigational assistance in controlling the aircraft), which the dispatcher provides.

Thus, the crew acted with the utmost competence, swiftly assessing the situation and making decisions in response to its developments. The captain and first officer systematically sought the best possible course of action to navigate the critical situation—an approach that ultimately saved the lives of 29 people, despite the near-total loss of aircraft control due to the impact.