What led to the Azerbaijan Airlines jet crash? | Explained

The story so far:

On December 25, 2024, an Azerbaijan Airlines flight, 4K-AZ65, en route from Baku in Azerbaijan to Grozny, the capital of Chechnya in Russia, with 67 passengers and crew, faced a series of serious technical difficulties. The weather appeared to have been a factor as the crew attempted to divert to Makhachkala in Russia. There was another diversion to Aktau in Kazakhstan by the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea, but the plane impacted the ground about three kilometres from Aktau’s airport, and 38 passengers were killed. There are conflicting reports on the cause, linked to a series of holes in a part of the fuselage and a survivor passenger’s video footage. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said “we can say with complete clarity that the plane was shot down… We are not saying that it was done intentionally, but it was done”. Azerbaijan has said that the aircraft “was ordered” to fly across the Caspian Sea after it was denied landing at two Russian airports. Data from the black boxes have been decoded in Brazil, where the twin-engine aircraft, an Embraer ERJ-190AR, was manufactured.

What are the other details?

The flight data site, Flightradar24, has told The Hindu that “We can confirm that the flight was operating in an area affected by GPS jamming and spoofing, hence we did not see a large portion of the flight. The last portion of the flight was operated in an area of good coverage.”

The website of Azerbaijan Airlines says the airline, which is a member of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), is in full compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. The airline has announced the suspension of flights to several cities in Russia on the directive of the Azerbaijan State Civil Aviation Authority following preliminary results from an investigation into the crash.

A report on the President of Russia’s official website, titled “Telephone conversation with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, December 28, 2024”, says: “The presidents had a detailed discussion of issues regarding the December 25 crash …. Vladimir Putin apologised for the fact that the incident happened in Russian airspace… It was noted during the conversation that the Azerbaijani passenger airliner was flying according to schedule and repeatedly tried to land at Grozny Airport. At that time, Ukrainian unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) attacked Grozny, Mozdok and Vladikavkaz, and Russian air defence systems were repelling these attacks. The Russian Investigative Committee initiated a criminal case under Article 263 of the Criminal Code (violation of the rules for traffic safety and operation of the air transportation systems). Initial investigation is underway….”

A media report says that the flight data have been analysed by the Aeronautical Accident Investigation and Prevention Center (CENIPA), Air Force Command, the central investigative body that is overseen by the Brazilian Air Force. Investigators from Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Russia are also involved.

On January 3, 2025, the President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, said 17 international experts including those from ICAO and the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC), the body representing some of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), were invited to ensure an “impartial and objective incident investigation”.

What does the accident highlight about conflict zones?

Dr. Hassan Shahidi, President and CEO, Flight Safety Foundation, Virginia, U.S., has told The Hindu that the operation of civilian flights in conflict zones is a complex issue that involves assessing the risks posed by ongoing hostilities. ICAO guidelines stress the importance of states providing up-to-date risk assessments and advisories to airlines about potential threats, including military activity, missile launches, or other hazards. Airlines, in turn, must conduct their own risk assessments. Under international law, specifically the Chicago Convention and its Annexes, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of civil aviation lies with states. If the crash is found to be caused by actions directly linked to Russia, whether intentional or negligent, questions of state responsibility and accountability under international law may arise, which may include legal actions and findings of criminal liability.

As the flight is said to have been subject to severe electronic and communication interference, Dr. Shahidhi said, “spoofing (sending false signals) and jamming (blocking or disrupting signals) can have severe impacts on aviation safety, particularly on navigation and communication systems. These technologies could interfere with Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNNS), for example, GPS, ADS-B and transponder signals and communication systems. Enhanced cybersecurity measures, alternative navigation systems, and robust incident reporting mechanisms are needed to mitigate these risks”.

An ICAO spokesperson has told The Hindu that ICAO has readied itself to support this investigation in the interest of aviation safety and security, deputing an ICAO expert to be deployed onsite as an observer to the international investigation team. He said, “The investigation, as prescribed by Annex 13, shall be conducted with the sole objective of preventing future accidents and incidents, through the collection and analysis of safety data and information. Annex 13 calls for a preliminary report to be produced within 30 days of the accident, with a final report to follow within 12 months.”

Conflict zones, with state and non-state players, pose immense risks to civil aviation and countries are responding to this growing threat with several initiatives. Canada’s Safer Skies initiative is one such example that was in response to the shooting down of a Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 in 2020 after take-off from Tehran.

After the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in 2014, the Dutch Safety Board’s final report gave rise to the “Risk Assessment Manual for Civil Aircraft Operations Over or Near Conflict Zones (Doc 10084, Restricted)“ by ICAO.

The IATA Tactical Operations Portal gives aviation subscribers real-time alerts related to airspace and airport operations. It operates based on a five-level alerting system. Another group is the Expert Group on Risk Information overflying Conflict Zones (EGRICZ), which is an informal international group that puts out information on airspace conflict zone risk assessments. There is also the Safer Skies Consultative Committee which is a formal international platform that examines conflict zone threats.

Where are GPS interference hotspots?

Flightradar24 says that the jamming of signals has been prevalent in the area around the Black Sea, while spoofing is common around Iraq, Ukraine, Russia, and also the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It says that flight crew are aware of GPS jamming and spoofing and are trained in advanced risk management.

Have nation-states been involved in air accidents?

As the paper, “Navigating the Legal Horizon: Lawyering the MH17 Disaster” (2017), by Marieke de Hoon in the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, points out, there have been about nine major cases. Some of them include the shooting down of a Cathay Pacific airliner by China in 1954; Libyan Arab Airlines flight 114 by Israel in 1973; Korean Airlines flight 007 by the then-Soviet Union in 1983; Iran Air flight 655 by the United States in 1988; the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 by ‘Libyan agents’ in 1988; Sibir Airlines flight 1812 by Ukraine in 2001; and MH17.

What about the legal issues?

Dr. Mohammad Owais Farooqui, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Law, College of Law, University of Sharjah, UAE, has told The Hindu that the accident poses important legal questions with regard to jurisdiction under the principles of international law.

It has drawn attention to the absence, ownership, and management of responsibility and authority in international aviation regulation, compensation, and state responsibility. In the investigations, there should be focus on how the existing international legal works and the bases, for example, the Chicago Convention and the Montreal Convention, regulate such occurrences, he says.

The law applicable to the liability for damage in this context is the Montreal Convention. Azerbaijan Airlines may be financially responsible for making compensation payments, but things get complicated if state responsibility is engaged, more so in a missile strike scenario. If there is evidence that a state is involved, principles of state responsibility under the international law may prevail over the Montreal Convention and the responsible state may be under obligation to make reparation under customary international law.

Another area of law is international humanitarian law, he says. The Chicago Convention specifically bans the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight, and if a state is involved, its conduct may amount to a breach of this law, especially if not in accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The Azerbaijan case, he says, highlights the necessity for more authoritative and codified regulation of international civil aviation activity, the enhancement of liability regulation at the global level, and cooperation within the international legal framework.