The Loss of Azerbaijan Airlines Flight J2-8243

It has been a busy few weeks for aircraft disasters. First was the downing of an F/A-18 Super Hornet shot down over the Red Sea on December 22 in an apparent case of "friendly fire" by the USS Gettysburg, a guided-missile cruiser. Both pilots ejected safely and were recovered, with one sustaining minor injuries. A full investigation is underway to determine precisely how the cruiser mistakenly engaged the friendly aircraft.

Yesterday, December 29th, a Jeju Air Boeing 737-800, carrying 181 passengers and crew from Bangkok to Muan International Airport in South Korea, crashed upon landing, resulting in the deaths of 179 people, with only two crew members whom I assume were flight attendants sitting in the tail section, surviving. The aircraft attempted a "belly landing" as its landing gear was not extended, skidding off the runway and crashing into a concrete wall, causing an explosion and fire. Initial reports suggest a possible bird strike compromised the plane's ability to lower its landing gear, which makes no sense to me, but we’ll see. Investigations have just begun.

What I’d like to talk about now is Azerbaijan Airlines, which crashed on Christmas Day. The flight, initially bound from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Grozny, Russia, ended in a fiery crash near Aktau, Kazakhstan, on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea. With 67 souls on board—62 passengers and five crew members—the crash resulted in 38 fatalities, leaving 29 survivors, some in critical condition.

Flight J2-8243 took off from Baku at approximately 03:55 UTC, with an intended destination of Grozny in the Chechen Republic of Russia. The flight path was north along the Caspian Sea. After a reported two or perhaps three attempts to land, the flight diverted after passengers and at least one surviving flight attendant stated they experienced several loud bangs. Reports suggest the plane was initially diverted due to adverse weather conditions, including dense fog in Grozny. However, the exact reasons for its diversion across the Caspian Sea to Aktau are, as of this writing, unknown.

There are several things that I found particularly interesting about this accident. A significant aspect of this tragedy involves the reported "strong GPS jamming," which affected the aircraft's navigation systems. Flight tracking data from Flightradar24 shows that the Embraer 190 experienced significant interference. The jamming was detected while the plane was over Russian airspace near Grozny. This interference caused the aircraft to transmit erroneous ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) data, making it appear that the aircraft was oscillating in altitude and speed, a clear sign of navigational disruption. This jamming could have hampered the pilots' ability to navigate safely, possibly contributing to the emergency that led to the diversion and the crash. I have flown over the southern Caspian many times when operating from Asia into Western Europe. This is one of two places that I’ve received GPS jamming, the other being south of Israel over the Sinai Peninsula between the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba. It’s a bit disconcerting as neither place is free from international turmoil. Many surface-to-air systems are in place, and they are all looking at you!

When the first reports came in on the crash, they all spoke of the possibility of a bird strike. Pictures of the tail section at the crash site clearly showed the absurdity of that conclusion. The tail was peppered with fragmentation damage, indicating an exterior explosion. This is not the first time this has happened over Russian airspace. I’m talking specifically about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a Boeing 777-200ER shot down on July 17, 2014, over eastern Ukraine, and the Russian Legacy 600 near Tver on August 24, 2023, which I wrote about here: https://www.targetedadvisors.com/blog/crash-of-russian-legacy-600

Analyses suggest that shrapnel from a Russian Pantsyr-S1 or similar air defense system might have struck the aircraft. This theory is bolstered by the pattern of damage observed on the wreckage, which resembles shrapnel impacts from such systems. Grozny, where the aircraft was initially headed, has been a hotspot for drone activity and Russian air defense operations due to ongoing tensions in the region. The presence of these systems could explain the plane's damage, especially if it was misidentified as a threat. While the missile strike is my leading hypothesis, other possibilities include an oxygen cylinder explosion or similar. However, these seem less likely given the nature of the damage observed and that ground radars were on alert for Ukranian drones.

Why Aktau? Several factors might have influenced the decision to fly to Aktau. If a missile indeed hit the plane, the pilots might have been looking for the nearest airport where they could land safely without further engaging Russian air defenses. With Grozny and Makhachkala airports closed or under threat, Aktau might have been the only viable option for an emergency landing despite being far removed from the original flight path. The distance over the Caspian being so far, it has also been speculated that the aircraft was diverted over the sea to hide evidence of the shootdown, with the wreckage falling into the depths of the Sea, which can exceed 3,000 feet. I find this very speculative, to say the least, but who knows? The whole thing is almost as bizarre as it is tragic.

"It is wrong to build hypotheses before the conclusions of the investigation," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. He’s not wrong. This incident remains under investigation, with many questions yet unanswered. The involvement of GPS jamming and the potential use of military weapons in civilian airspace highlight the dangers of flying over conflict zones. The final report will hopefully shed light on why Flight J2-8243 ended its journey in such a tragic manner, providing closure to the families of the victims and insights to prevent future disasters.

Below is an AI analysis of possible legal claims following Azerbaijan Airlines Flight J2-8243 Crash:

1. Negligence and Wrongful Death:

    Against Russian State or Military: If it's proven that Russian air defense systems mistakenly or intentionally shot down the civilian aircraft, claims could be made for negligence, wrongful death, and personal injury. The state could be held liable for failing to differentiate between military and civilian targets, especially in a conflict zone like Chechnya, where drone activity is known.

    Against Azerbaijan Airlines: Claims might arise if there were failures in aircraft maintenance, pilot training, or inadequate response to navigational issues like GPS jamming.

2. International Law Violations:

    Sovereignty and Airspace Rights: The incident occurred over Russian airspace and ended in Kazakhstan, potentially involving claims regarding violations of airspace sovereignty. If intentional, this could be seen as a breach of international law concerning civil aviation safety.

    Montreal Convention: This international treaty governs compensation for damages in the event of accidents in international air travel, applicable here since the flight was international. Compensation claims could be pursued under this framework.

3. Claims Against Manufacturers:

    Embraer: If there's evidence that the aircraft had design flaws or was not equipped to handle GPS jamming effectively, legal action might be directed at Embraer for product liability.

4. GPS Jamming and Security:

    Civil Aviation Authorities: Aviation authorities could be sued for not adequately warning or protecting against known hazards like GPS jamming in conflict zones. This might involve both Russian and international aviation regulatory bodies.

5. Jurisdictional Issues:

    Multiple Jurisdictions: The crash involved three countries - Azerbaijan (origin), Russia (where the incident began), and Kazakhstan (crash site). Legal claims would need to navigate complex international jurisdiction issues, possibly involving:

        Kazakhstan: Where the plane crashed, local laws would apply for immediate response and investigation.

        Russia: For actions or events within its airspace, including potential military involvement.

        Azerbaijan: For the airline's role and responsibilities.

6. Compensation and Insurance:

    Insurance Claims: Both passengers and the airline might have insurance that could lead to claims for damages, loss of life, and property destruction.

    State Compensation: Depending on the findings, state compensation might be available for the victims' families, especially if state negligence or military action is confirmed.

7. Criminal Liability:

    Investigation Outcomes: If the crash was due to a missile from Russian air defenses, criminal proceedings against those responsible could be pursued, potentially involving international courts if the incident is seen as a war crime or violation of international aviation safety.

8. Diplomatic and Political Fallout:

    Although not a legal claim, the incident could lead to diplomatic tensions or agreements between the involved countries on investigation and compensation.

The legal outcomes will largely depend on the final investigation reports, which will clarify the cause of the crash, the involvement of military systems, and the effectiveness of civil aviation protocols. The multinational nature of the incident would require cooperation across borders for legal resolution.