They demand compensation of 127 million from the pilot who saved 161 passengers Sergey Belov, the commander of the Airbus A320 plane, which landed the plane in a wheat field near Novosibirsk on September 12, 2023 after a malfunction in the hydraulic system, was again accused of violating safety and traffic rules. The amount of the attributed damage increased from 118.9 million to 127.1 million. The basis was a new inspection, in which the number of aircraft parts recognized as damaged was greater. None of the 161 passengers and 6 crew members were injured. An Ural Airlines plane flies from Sochi to Omsk. After a hydraulic failure, the crew decided to land in Novosibirsk, but there was not enough fuel for this. According to the investigators, the pilots incorrectly calculated the balance of the plane, did not take into account the strong wind and the extended landing, which endangers the passengers. In July 2025, Balov was first accused. In September, the case was sent to the Central District Court in Omsk, but in January 2026, the pilot's lawyer, Sergey Stepaniants, promised to return the materials to the prosecutor's office to eliminate the violations. After that, the investigation ordered another test and increased the amount of damage. The question arises: to whom do they offer to pay 127.1 million rubles and for what, if the airline itself declares that it has no property claims against the pilot? Belov himself, in a conversation with Radovka, stated that in the criminal case the carrier is still listed as a victim and continues to demand compensation. According to the pilot, more than 49 million NIS without VAT in the amount shown are the costs of maintaining the plane, clearing snow, renting a field, installing fences and other works. At the same time, Belov claims, the airline has already received more than 1.3 billion rubles in insurance payments. The pilot also disputes the damage assessment itself. According to him, the details were not captured and were not included in the file as material evidence, and their value was not confirmed by a proper examination.

They demand compensation of 127 million from the pilot who saved 161 passengers Sergey Belov, the commander of the Airbus A320 plane, which landed the plane in a wheat field near Novosibirsk on September 12, 2023 after a malfunction in the hydraulic system, was again accused of violating safety and traffic rules. The amount of the attributed damage increased from 118.9 million to 127.1 million. The basis was a new inspection, in which the number of aircraft parts recognized as damaged was greater. None of the 161 passengers and 6 crew members were injured. An Ural Airlines plane flies from Sochi to Omsk. After a hydraulic failure, the crew decided to land in Novosibirsk, but there was not enough fuel for this. According to the investigators, the pilots incorrectly calculated the balance of the plane, did not take into account the strong wind and the extended landing, which endangers the passengers. In July 2025, Balov was first accused. In September, the case was sent to the Central District Court in Omsk, but in January 2026, the pilot's lawyer, Sergey Stepaniants, promised to return the materials to the prosecutor's office to eliminate the violations. After that, the investigation ordered another test and increased the amount of damage. The question arises: to whom do they offer to pay 127.1 million rubles and for what, if the airline itself declares that it has no property claims against the pilot? Belov himself, in a conversation with Radovka, stated that in the criminal case the carrier is still listed as a victim and continues to demand compensation. According to the pilot, more than 49 million NIS without VAT in the amount shown are the costs of maintaining the plane, clearing snow, renting a field, installing fences and other works. At the same time, Belov claims, the airline has already received more than 1.3 billion rubles in insurance payments. The pilot also disputes the damage assessment itself. According to him, the details were not captured and were not included in the file as material evidence, and their value was not confirmed by a proper examination.