Bulgaria crash. Wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria"

Motor ship "BULGARIA"- double-deck passenger ships with cabins for 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 passengers. Some cabins were equipped with washbasins. The ships had two restaurants and two salons.
Diesel-electric ship "BULGARIA" was built in 1955 at the Národný Podnik Škoda Komárno shipyard in Komárno, Czechoslovakia.

Until 1962, the ship belonged to the Volga Shipping Company (home port - Gorky), then it was transferred to the Kama River Shipping Company. Home port - Perm.

In 2011, the ship was rented to Breeze LLC. In June 2011, the ship was subleased to Argorechtur LLC from Kazan. In recent years, the Kazan company InturVolga has been selling tickets for cruises on the ship for various tour operators.

The motor ship sailed along the reservoirs and large lakes of the Volga River basin (including the Kama), performing tourist (pleasure) voyages.

Motor ship "UKRAINE" took part in the events at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. 13 ships were used as floating hotels for liquidators and sarcophagus builders above the emergency station. After the completion of the work, some of the ships were scuttled at their moorings in the Dnieper, the least contaminated ships (including the UKRAINE (BULGARIA)) were returned to service.

On the night of September 4-5, 2008, while on the passenger dock, motor ship "UKRAINE" went beyond its border and ran aground with the entire hull near the river port of Kazan. After 2 hours, a called push tug refloated the vessel, and it returned safely to the river port.

July 10, 2011 around 1:58 pm for a few minutes motor ship "Bulgaria" completely sank at a depth of about 18 meters. The crash occurred 3 kilometers from the right bank of the Volga, near the village of Syukeevo, Kamsko-Ustinsky district of Tatarstan.

Technical characteristics of the motor ship "BULGARIA" ("UKRAINE")

Photos motor ship "BULGARIA" ("UKRAINE")

The disaster occurred during a two-day “weekend cruise” on the route Kazan - Bolgar - Kazan.
Motor ship "BULGARIA" went on this voyage with one faulty engine and a list of about 5 degrees to starboard.

Under bad weather conditions (there was rain and a squally wind blew), when maneuvering and entering the main channel, the ship tilted even more to the starboard side. Flooding of decks and interior spaces occurred.

The rapid flooding of the ship is associated with a design feature - the lack of waterproof bulkheads in the hull, wear and tear and technical malfunctions, which were often observed by passengers in the last year.

It was not possible to lower the boats from the ship in distress; only 2 inflatable rafts were used. Of the 201 passengers on board (including 25 unregistered and about 50 children) and crew members, 79 people were rescued by the Arabella.

Team motor ship "BULGARIA" did not send a distress signal. This could be due to an electrical failure. It can be assumed that the disaster occurred due to the stoppage of the only working engine, as a result of which the crew could lose control of the ship and were unable to correct the growing list and its interior was flooded with water, which led to flooding.

Captain motor ship "BULGARIA" A. Ostrovsky died, the body of the captain and his wife was found on July 12.

On July 12, 2011, the Investigative Committee opened a criminal case under Part 3 of Art. 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Provision of services that do not meet safety requirements”) against the lessee of the vessel, the head of the Argorechtur company, Svetlana Inyakina, as well as against the senior expert of the Kama branch of the Russian river register, Yakov Ivashov.

After the disaster, two ships passed by - the Danube-66 and the Arbat. Criminal cases were opened against their captains under Art. 270 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Failure by the captain of a ship to provide assistance to those in distress”). At the same time, it is hardly worth saying that the captains of these ships knew about the shipwreck and deliberately did not provide the assistance that the victims needed.

On July 12, the date for the lifting of the ship was set - July 16, 2011. The rise date was later moved to July 18 at 10 a.m. As a result, “BULGARIA” was raised only on July 23, 2011. The deadlines were delayed due to the enormous technical difficulties encountered in solving this engineering problem. The motor ship got stuck in the silt, there was rough water in the water area, the bottom had to be leveled to install the BULGARIA on an even keel. The ship was raised to the level of the upper deck, after which water, sand and silt began to be pumped out from the side of the ship, which significantly increased the weight of the ship.

Photo by RIA Novosti, Valery Melnikov.

The BULGARIA disaster became the largest since the wreck of the motor ship ALEXANDER SUVOROV in Ulyanovsk, which is 50 kilometers south of the place where the BULGARIA was lost.

After the ship was lifted, it was placed on a floating dock, in which it was to be delivered to the shore. On July 28, while loading the BULGARIA into a floating dock, the ship collapsed from a three-meter height onto the dock deck. This could have happened due to inaccurate calculations by the leaders of the operation to move the vessel. In addition, the ship was moving with a list. Having fallen on the starboard side, the ship received damage to this side, which probably made it difficult to examine the causes of the accident.

On August 15, 2011, the Commission of the Federal Service for Supervision of Transport completed its investigation into the accident of the diesel-electric ship "Bulgaria". The commission's report is below.

The commission came to the conclusion that the causes of the accident were a combination of the following factors: failure by the shipowner and captain of the vessel to comply with the requirements of regulatory documents regulating the safety of navigation during the planning, preparation and implementation of the voyage, during which the safety of the vessel’s navigation was not ensured, as well as low qualifications and indiscipline of the crew members vessel.

The immediate cause of the ship's flooding was a significant decrease in its stability in stormy conditions as a result of seawater entering the ship's premises through open side windows and the formation of a free surface of water in the compartments below the main deck, which led to a significant list of the ship to starboard and subsequent flooding of the ship due to further entry of a large volume of sea water into the ship’s hull from the starboard side through the main deck.

During the investigation, it was established that on July 10, 2011 at 11:15, the captain of the d/e "Bulgaria", despite the current storm warning for wind strength and visibility on the Kuibyshev reservoir (wind gusts up to 20 m/s), did not set notifying the nearest dispatcher about the upcoming voyage, he decided to move the vessel from the pier. Bulgarians in Kazan.

Before entering reservoirs on inland water navigation vessels, all portholes and hatch covers below the main deck, including in passenger cabins, must be sealed. However, the crew of the Bulgaria ship ignored this safety requirement and also did not ensure control over its implementation in the passenger cabins. During the inspection of the sunken ship by divers, it was recorded that 27 portholes were open on the left side of the diesel-electric ship, and 11 portholes on the right side.

When the vessel was moving, a list to starboard of about 4 degrees was observed. During the subsequent inspection of the damaged vessel at the dock, four holes were discovered in the vessel's hull on the starboard side, at the location of the wastewater collection tank, with a total area of ​​44 square meters. cm.

At about 12:25 on July 10, 2011, the ship was hit by a strong gust of wind from the port side, and a heavy downpour and thunderstorm began. At this moment, the ship "Bulgaria" was entering a left turn at the axial turning buoy No. 82, for which the ship's rudders were turned to the left by 5 degrees. It should be noted that when the rudders are shifted to the left, all ships acquire an additional dynamic roll to starboard. The commission assumes that after the start of the turn, a wind squall hit the left side of the vessel at an angle close to straight. Due to the impact of squally winds on the entire port side, the ship tilted even more to starboard. The roll angle to starboard was 9 degrees. With such a list, the starboard portholes entered the water, as a result of which about 50 tons of sea water entered the ship’s compartments in 1 minute through the open portholes. To reduce the area of ​​influence of the wind on the left side, the captain decided to head “towards the wind”, for which the rudders were placed 15° to the left, as a result of which the ship tilted even more to the right side. As a result of the addition of the existing static list to the starboard side, the inertial forces arising when the ship makes a turn, the pressure caused by the action of the wind on the port side, as well as the influence of waves and rolling of the vessel, an additional heeling moment arose, which formed a list of 13° to the starboard side. At the same time, the total amount of water entering the ship’s compartments reached 125 tons per minute. As a result, all the portholes and part of the main deck on the starboard side were submerged in water. Water began to flow intensively into the interior of the vessel through open portholes, splash doors and entrance hatches on the main deck. Over the next 5-7 seconds, there was a sharp increase in the list from 15 to 20 degrees, as a result of which the ship capsized to starboard and sank.
The commission concluded that the causes of the accident were a combination of the following factors:
1. Failure by the shipowner and captain of the vessel to comply with the requirements of regulatory documents regulating the safety of navigation during the planning, preparation and implementation of a voyage, during which the safe navigation of the vessel was not ensured. Thus, the shipowner and captain of the vessel deliberately violated the restrictions of the Russian River Register for vessels of this project, prohibiting their operation:
- with malfunctions of ship mechanisms (the left main diesel generator on the ship has not been working since July 8, 2011);
- with damage to the case (presence of four holes).
- with a wind force of more than 7 points (13.5 – 17.4 m/sec) in which the requirements of “Information on the stability and unsinkability of the vessel” were not met. The wind force at the time of the accident was 20 m/sec. (very strong wind, storm) with gusts reaching even greater values;
2. Low qualifications and lack of discipline of the ship’s crew members, expressed in:
- failure to take the necessary safety measures when the vessel enters the reservoir and upon receiving a storm warning. The ship's port and starboard portholes were not closed, including in the engine room, where only crew members were on watch;
- unauthorized shutdown of the starboard main diesel generator by the senior mechanic, without receiving a command from the bridge;
- failure of ship machinery due to non-compliance with the Technical Operation Rules;
- non-compliance with generally accepted techniques and methods of steering a vessel. The left turn maneuver was carried out without taking into account: the stability features of the vessel, the already existing list of 4° to starboard; an additional roll to starboard caused by centrifugal force during circulation to the left; a strong wind blowing on the left side and a large sail of the ship;
- in violation by the captain of the vessel of the requirements of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Procedure for dispatch control of vessel traffic on inland waterways of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Transport of Russia dated March 1, 2010 No. 47 “On approval of the procedure for dispatch control of vessel traffic on inland waterways of the Russian Federation” ( the captain did not inform the dispatcher and did not receive dispatch permission for the vessel to move).
Specialists from Rostransnadzor, representatives of scientific organizations (Central Research Institute of the Marine Fleet), classification societies (Russian River Register) took part in the work of the Commission of the Federal Service for Supervision of Transport. The Commission also took into account the opinions of independent experts from among veteran navigators and ship mechanics of the river fleet, representatives of public organizations (Association of Shipping Companies, Union of Russian Shipowners), other individuals and organizations.
The investigation materials will be sent to the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation in accordance with the established procedure.
Rostransnadzor is conducting its own investigation into the actions and degree of responsibility of department officials.

At approximately 13:30 Moscow time in the Kuibyshev reservoir near the village of Syukeevo in the Kamsko-Ustinsky district of the Republic of Tatarstan. The main cause of the crash was that the crew did not batten down the windows, and water filled them when a roll occurred as a result of a gust of wind and a turn.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

✪ Wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria" on the Volga

✪ ...to the victims of the tragedy of the motor ship "Bulgaria"....10.07.2011...

✪ "Tragedy on the Volga". Let them talk. 07/11/2011

Subtitles

Vessel history

Double-deck motor ship (diesel-electric ship) « Bulgaria"was built in 1955 at the shipyard Národný Podnik Škoda Komárno(Now Slovenské lodenice Komárno a.s.) in Komarno (Czechoslovakia, now Slovakia) according to project 785 in the second series.

Since its construction, the ship has been named Ukraine, in February 2010 it was renamed in honor of Volga Bulgaria - an ancient state on the territory of modern Tatarstan. Until 1962, it belonged to the Volga United River Shipping Company (VORP), home port - Gorky, then it was transferred to the Kama River Shipping Company (currently OJSC Shipping Company Kama River Shipping Company, general director - Valery Neznakin, largest shareholder - Mikhail Antonov), home port - Tchaikovsky.

In 2000-2010, the ship's tenants were Kazan Shipping Company, Vodaflot, and Volgatur. Then the ship was rented to Breeze LLC (general director - Valery Neznakin, who in June 2011 subleased the ship to Kazan LLC ArgoRechTur (director - Svetlana Inyakina), which had a bad business reputation and was not included in the Unified Register of Tour Operators, which means no rights to organize transportation.

Crash and subsequent events

The motor ship "Bulgaria", cruising along the route Kazan - Bolgar - Kazan, sank on July 10, 2011 in the Volga near the village of Syukeevo, Kama-Ustinsky district of Tatarstan.

According to the Rostransnadzor report, “at about 12:25 on July 10, the ship was hit by a strong gust of wind from the port side, and a heavy downpour and thunderstorm began. At this moment, the ship “Bulgaria” was entering a left turn. It should be noted that when the rudders are shifted to the left, all ships acquire an additional dynamic roll to starboard.” As a result, the roll angle was 9 degrees. “With such a list, the starboard portholes entered the water, as a result of which about 50 tons of sea water entered the ship’s compartments in 1 minute through the open portholes. To reduce the area exposed to the wind on the port side, the captain decided to head into the wind. To do this, the rudders were placed 15T to the left.” As a result, the list increased and the total amount of water entering the ship’s compartments reached 125 tons per minute. After this, all the portholes and part of the main deck on the starboard side sank into the water. Over the next 5-7 seconds, there was a sharp increase in the list from 15 to 20 degrees, as a result of which the ship capsized to starboard and sank.

Two vessels - the dry cargo ship "Arbat" and the pusher "Dunaysky 66" - passed by rafts with passengers and crew of the motor ship "Bulgaria". The first ship to come to the aid of those in distress was the cruise ship Arabella, whose crew carried out the rescue operation. On board the Arabella, the survivors were provided with first aid, food, hot drinks and dry clothing. Several seriously injured were sent to Kazan on the Meteor.

For several days since the tragedy, the operation to lift the motor ship "Bulgaria" from the bottom of the Kuibyshev Reservoir and to search for the bodies of the victims continued. Significant forces of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, the Ministry of Transport of Russia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, the Ministry of Health and Social Development and commercial structures, including Sevzapkanat (a unique equipment was developed for lifting the ship) were drawn to the area of ​​the crash. As a result, the motor ship "Bulgaria" was lifted and transported to the nearest ship repair plant in Kuibyshevsky Zaton. At the same time, all the bodies of the dead were discovered.

According to final data, of the 201 people on board, 79 were saved. The death of the remaining 122 people was confirmed. Among the dead was the captain of the motor ship "Bulgaria" Alexander Ostrovsky.

The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in connection with the wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria" initiated several criminal cases, and also brought a number of officials to criminal liability:

As a result, at the preliminary investigation stage, all criminal cases (with the exception of criminal cases initiated against captains Yu. Tuchin and A. Egorov) were combined into one proceeding, and the final charges and articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation imputed to the accused were clarified.

By the verdict of the Moscow District Court of Kazan from July 3-7, 2014, all defendants in the criminal case were found guilty of the crimes they were charged with (except for S. Inyakina, who was acquitted under the overly imputed Article 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). More details in the section.

All defendants in the mentioned criminal cases, with the exception of two captains who did not provide assistance to those in distress, and the senior mate of the captain of the motor ship "Bulgaria" Ramil Khametov, were placed in custody.

Several departments presented to the public their conclusions based on the results of inspections regarding the crash of the motor ship "Bulgaria" (see section).

The wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria" had a great public resonance in Russia and the rest of the world, which in turn became the reason for the start of mass inspections in the river fleet industry, in the bodies of the River Register and Rostransnadzor. It was the “Bulgaria” accident that intensified the process of adopting a law on compulsory carrier liability insurance.

Memory

A buoy has been installed at the crash site. Ships passing by must sound a long sound signal (horn), thereby paying tribute to the memory of those who died on the ship.

The parents of five-year-old Kirill Chernov, who died in the crash of the motor ship "Bulgaria", announced that compensation funds would be used to build a children's playground near the village of Krasnogorsky in the Republic of Mari El.

Results of the investigation

Rostransnadzor

From the operative part of the audit conclusion:

The commission concluded that the causes of the accident were a combination of the following factors:

1. Failure by the shipowner and captain of the vessel to comply with the requirements of regulatory documents regulating the safety of navigation when planning, preparing and carrying out a voyage, during which the safety of the vessel’s navigation was not ensured. Thus, the shipowner and captain of the vessel deliberately violated the restrictions of the Russian River Register for vessels of this project, prohibiting their operation:

2. Low qualifications and lack of discipline of the ship’s crew members, expressed in:

• failure to take the necessary safety measures when the vessel enters the reservoir and upon receiving a storm warning. The ship's port and starboard portholes were not closed, including in the engine room, where only crew members were on watch;
• in the unauthorized shutdown of the starboard main diesel generator by the senior engineer, without receiving a command from the bridge;
• in the failure of ship machinery due to non-compliance with the Technical Operation Rules;
• in non-compliance with generally accepted techniques and methods of vessel control. The left turn maneuver was carried out without taking into account: the stability features of the vessel, the already existing roll of 4° to starboard; an additional roll to starboard caused by centrifugal force during circulation to the left; a strong wind blowing on the left side and a large sail of the ship;
• in violation by the captain of the vessel of the requirements of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Procedure for dispatch control of vessel traffic on inland waterways of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Transport of Russia dated March 1, 2010 No. 47 “On approval of the procedure for dispatch control of vessel traffic on inland waterways of the Russian Federation” (captain did not inform the dispatcher and did not receive dispatch permission for the vessel to move).

Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation

Official representative of the RF IC Vladimir Markin:

The Investigative Committee officially declares that it will be possible to finally establish the cause of the sinking of the vessel only based on the results of a judicial commission of navigation and engineering and technical examination, which is currently being carried out. Taking into account the conclusion of the expert commission, appropriate procedural decisions will be made.

Regarding information about holes on the hull of the ship, Vladimir Markin explained:

Information disseminated in the media with reference to the results of the survey of the ship carried out by the Middle Volga branch of the Russian River Register that the crash of the "Bulgaria" occurred due to holes is not true. The investigation believes that the reference to anonymous experts is deliberately used to influence public opinion in order to exempt from criminal liability officials against whom a criminal case has already been initiated, as well as other persons who may soon be brought to criminal liability .

Vladimir Markin after the verdict was announced to the defendants in the case:

I would like to note that the investigation not only established the causes of the tragedy, but also took measures to prevent this from happening in the future. The desire to enrich irresponsible businessmen and corrupt officials at the expense of the health, and especially the lives of citizens, cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation

A preliminary version of the cause of the crash of the motor ship "Bulgaria" is open portholes.

Public Chamber of the Russian Federation

On November 21, 2011, the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation presented the conclusion of a public investigation, from which it follows that the crew did not take the necessary measures to prepare the vessel for departure in accordance with the announced meteorological forecast for the Kuibyshev reservoir, in particular, the crew of the "Bulgaria" did not provide stability of the vessel, did not batten down the portholes, including emergency ones, did not repair the breakdown of the left main engine, and also did not connect communications equipment to emergency power sources; the vessel was controlled without taking into account its real load, the report says. The presence of an initial list of the vessel to the starboard side, the appearance of an additional list when the vessel turned to the left, as well as a gust of heavy wind and waves (on the reservoir) led to an intensive flow of water into the hull through the open portholes and, as a result, to loss of stability and flooding of the vessel.

Court

Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

On August 9, 2011, the ArgoRechTur Limited Liability Company was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 2 of Article 14.1 by the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (judge A.R. Nasyrov). Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and he was sentenced to an administrative fine in the amount of 50,000 rubles (maximum penalty for this offense) .

Excerpt from the reasoning part of the decision:

As can be seen from the documents presented in the case, on July 10, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. at 1406.0 0 km of the waterway of the Kuibyshev reservoir, near the village. Syukeevo village (according to the Atlas of the Unified State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation volume 6 part 1 of the 2006 edition) making the flight Bulgaria - Kazan, passenger ship "Bulgaria" with passengers on board, numbering 147 people, and crew members, in an overloaded state, having malfunctions in the power plant, with an understaffed crew, a list to starboard, during a left turn maneuver and a likely increase in wind in the area of ​​the 82nd axial buoy, a capsize occurred on board with subsequent flooding and a large number of casualties.

From the effective part of the solution:

Satisfy the stated requirements. Involve the Limited Liability Company "ArgoRechTour", registered at the address: Republic of Tatarstan, Kazan, st. Belinskogo, 41, apt. (office) 22, entered into the unified state register of legal entities under the main state registration No. 1101690064464 to administrative liability under Part 2 of Article 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, with the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of 50,000 rubles.

Moskovsky District Court of Kazan

At the request of victims and other persons, most of whom live in the city of Kazan, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan changed the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal case “On the wreck of the motor ship “Bulgaria”” and determined the Moskovsky District Court of the city of Kazan to be the court of first instance.

On May 6, 2013, the Moscow District Court of Kazan began a trial of the main criminal case at first instance. Some of the court hearings, including the announcement of the verdict, were moved to the Yunost House of Culture in order to be able to accommodate all the victims, witnesses and representatives of the press.

During the period from July 3 to July 7, 2014 (with interruptions) in the Moscow District Court of the city of Kazan, Judge S. N. Yakunin announced the verdict against all defendants in the case.

In addition, everyone is prohibited from engaging in certain types of activities for a period of 3 years. The civil claim of the victims for a total amount of 50,000,000 rubles was satisfied.

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

On April 2, 2015, the Supreme Court of Tatarstan approved the verdict in the criminal case regarding the crash of the diesel-electric ship "Bulgaria". The Supreme Court decided to strengthen the sentence imposed on Ivashov under Art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and exclude the decision on amnesty from the sentence. He was sentenced to five and a half years in a general regime colony with deprivation of the right to hold positions in the bodies supervising the operation of all types of transport, as well as in the river Rosregister for a period of three years, crediting him with the time spent in custody from July 12, 2011 to the term of serving his sentence. July 3, 2014. The court commuted Inyakina’s sentence, releasing her “due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution” from Part 2 of Art. 143 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, sentencing her only under Art. 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (provision of services that do not meet the requirements for the safety of life and health of consumers, resulting in the death of two or more persons through negligence) - nine and a half years in prison. For the remaining convicts, the sentence was left unchanged.

The main participants in the events associated with the wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria"

• Inyakina Svetlana Georgievna- General Director and sole participant of the Limited Liability Company "Argorechtur", which was the sublessee and operator of the motor ship "Bulgaria" during the 2011 season. Accused of providing services that do not meet the safety and health requirements of consumers (Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), violating safety rules for the operation of inland water transport (Article 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), violating labor protection rules (Article 143 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
• Ivashov Yakov- senior expert of the Kama branch of the Russian River Register, who issued Argorechtur LLC a positive conclusion for the operation of the motor ship "Bulgaria" in 2011. Accused of unlawfully issuing official documents certifying the compliance of the services provided by Inyakina with the requirements for the safety of life and health of consumers (Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), abuse of official powers for mercenary and other personal interest (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
• Timergazeev Irek- Head of the Kazan department of Rostransnadzor. According to the investigation, Timirgazeev Irek, together with Semenov Vladislav, gave a positive conclusion about the readiness of Argorechtur LLC to transport passengers, while there were no grounds for this. Accused of abuse of power out of other personal interests (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
• Semenov Vladislav- Chief State Inspector of the Kazan Department of Rostransnadzor. According to the investigation, Vladislav Semenov, together with Irek Timirgazeev, gave a positive conclusion about the readiness of Argorechtur LLC to transport passengers, while there were no grounds for this. Accused of abuse of power out of other personal interests (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
• Tuchin Yuri Vladislavovich- captain of the dry cargo ship "Arbat", convicted by the Kamsko-Ustinsky District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan under Article 270 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with failure to provide assistance to survivors of the wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria". Sentenced to a fine of 130 thousand rubles.
• Egorov Alexander Pavlovich- captain of the pusher "Dunaysky 66", convicted by the Moscow District Court of the city of Kazan under Article 270 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with failure to provide assistance to survivors of the wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria". Sentenced to a fine of 190 thousand rubles.
• Safin Rashid- Director of the Kazan River Port, dismissed from this position on July 15, 2011 “for allowing the release of the motor ship “Bulgaria” on a cruise.” He challenged his dismissal in court, but the courts of the first and second instance considered the dismissal legal and justified.
• Ostrovsky Alexander- captain of the motor ship "Bulgaria", died in the wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria". During search operations at the crash site, the body of Captain Ostrovsky was discovered on the captain's bridge. The criminal case was discontinued due to the death of the accused.
• Ramil Khametov- survivor of the disaster, senior mate of the ship "Bulgaria". During the investigation of a criminal case, he was accused of violating traffic safety rules and operating inland water transport (Article 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)..
• Khramov Alexander Grigorievich- Head of the Volga Department of the State Marine and River Supervision Authority (Nizhny Novgorod), who committed suicide on August 22, 2011 due to dismissal from his position. Alexander Khramov was a witness in the case of the wreck of the motor ship "Bulgaria" (the same witness as Irek Timergazeev and Vladislav Semenov were before August 15, 2011).
• Lizalin Roman Evgenievich- captain of the motor ship "Arabella", who together organized the rescue of the surviving passengers and crew members of the motor ship "Bulgaria". Subsequently he was awarded state and departmental awards.
• Chernyshov Sergey Mikhailovich- Major General of Justice, senior investigator for particularly important cases under the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia, head of the investigative group created to investigate the criminal case opened on the fact of the crash of the motor ship "Bulgaria" on July 10, 2011.
• Yakunin Sergey Nikolaevich- judge of the Moscow District Court of the city of Kazan, who considered the criminal case “On the wreck of the motor ship “Bulgaria”” at first instance.
• Antonov Mikhail- largest shareholder of JSC "Shipping Company" Kama River Shipping Company "", tycoon. The Kama River Shipping Company denied rumors about Antonov’s flight abroad.
• Neznakin Valery- General Director of JSC “Shipping Company “Kama River Shipping Company”” - owner of the motor ship “Bulgaria”.
• OJSC Shipping Company "Kama River Shipping Company" (Perm)- the owner of the motor ship "Bulgaria", who did not bear responsibility, despite the current legislation, according to which the legal owner of the property bears responsibility for damage caused by the operation of the property.
• Breeze LLC (Perm)- a company that is a lessee of the motor ship “Bulgaria”, which subleased this motor ship to Argorechtur LLC.
• Argorechtur LLC (Kazan) is a travel company created by Svetlana Inyakina at the end of 2010. As of July 10, 2011, this legal entity was the current sublessee of the motor ship "Bulgaria", fully responsible for manning the crew, ongoing repairs and maintaining the ship in proper technical condition.

Opinions about the disaster

A terrible tragedy occurred on the Volga. My condolences to the families and friends of those killed

and at the meetings he gave instructions:

All search efforts must be completed, despite the fact that there is practically no hope of finding anyone alive. This must be done for understandable moral and ethical reasons and in order to find out all the circumstances of his death

The number of old vessels that float with us is prohibitive! If it happened before, this does not mean that it could not happen. This happened, and with the most terrible consequences. It is necessary to assess this situation and force either to carry out the necessary overhaul of all those who own ships, or to take them out of service if they are not suitable in terms of their quality for carrying out this type of transportation.

It is not the “switchmen” who swiped the papers who must answer for this crime, but everyone who organizes this process... So that next time any official, regardless of rank, understands that responsibility for the departure of such a vessel to sea can be not only disciplinary, but also criminal. This criminal liability must be translated into very tangible penalties.

It is necessary to figure out what happened, expose and punish those responsible. This should be done in relation to a wide range of people, including the organizers of this mess, and not just the “switchmen”, the vice-chairmen and other random people who fell into this orbit.

If the technology is outdated, is it possible to use this technology at the risk of human life? only in order to get money? It is no coincidence that all these catastrophes are accompanied, on the one hand, by examples of courage and selfless feat, and on the other - by examples of cowardice and recklessness... If the dominant feature of our lives continues to be the desire to earn as much as possible by any means necessary, then we are in for more O greater disasters.

What happened on July 10 with Bulgaria, without any exaggeration, shocked the whole country. So many victims, so many children died! It’s terrible that we have to pay such a tribute for irresponsibility, for carelessness, for greed, for a gross violation of technological safety rules...

...In general, how could it happen that a company without a license for tourism activities, without a license to use ships, could operate? How were tickets sold at the port? Who allowed? How were you released from the port? How did the port enter into an agreement with this company, which does not have a single license for services at the port? How could this happen? Where were Rostekhnadzor, Rostransnadzor? Where were all these departments?

Valery Neznakin, General Director of JSC Shipping Company Kama River Shipping Company, the day after the crash of the motor ship Bulgaria:

In this case, we bear not legal, but only moral responsibility for the death of passengers.

Svetlana Inyakina, director of ArgoRechTour LLC, told the press before her arrest (text as edited by the source):

Everything was fine with the ship. According to the register documents, everything was in order, the ship was in technically acceptable condition. It's simple assault warning and strong wind. We got caught in a storm and the hold was flooded.

Notes

1. Upon the flooding of the passenger mv ship Bulgaria and the death of passengers, the Volga Investigative Department of Transport of the Investigative Committee of Russia has opened a criminal case (undefined) . Privolzhsky Investigation Department for Transport of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (11.07.11). Retrieved July 11, 2011. Archived August 14, 2012.
2. A criminal case has been initiated against the co-owners of “Bulgaria” for failure to pay dividends to the state.
3. OJSC "Shipping Company "Kama River Shipping Company" (KRP), registered in 1993. 53% of the shares belong to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the OJSC, Mikhail Antonov, through the Antonov Group - F.Z.E., registered in the United Arab Emirates. 32.13% of the authorized capital belongs to the state. According to the reporting of the OJSC, it leases six of its vessels, including the Bulgaria, to Breeze LLC (Perm), the founder of which is also Mikhail Antonov. Breeze LLC, in turn, subleased this vessel to ArgoRechTour LLC (Kazan), the director and founder of which is Svetlana Inyakina. The owner of the Bulgaria is already under investigation. Newspaper “Kommersant”, No. 125 (4666), 07/12/2011, 2nd page
4. The Investigative Committee found the culprits of the Bulgaria disaster, the media and bloggers of the owner, a United Russia millionaire, Newsru.com, 07/12/2011.

The Moscow court of Kazan sentenced the director of ArgoRechTour LLC Svetlana Inyakina, subtenant of the motor ship "Bulgaria", to 11 years of imprisonment in a general regime colony. The defendant was found guilty under Art. 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Provision of services that do not meet security requirements”) and Art. 143 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Violation of labor protection rules”). The court found that the sublessee of the motor ship "Bulgaria" did not ensure that the vessel was prepared for sailing, did not train the crew, and violated the rules for operating a river vessel. Also in this case, the senior mate of the vessel Ramil Khametov sentenced to 6.5 years of imprisonment in a general regime colony, and former employees of the Kazan linear department of the Volga Department of the State Marine and River Supervision Authority Irek Timergazeev And Vladislav Semenov received 6 and 5 years in a general regime colony, respectively.

July 10, 2011 Near the village of Syukeevo, Kamsko-Ustinovsky district of the Republic of Tatarstan, the passenger airliner "Bulgaria" sank during a thunderstorm. 122 people died in this disaster, including 28 children. The chronology of events is reminiscent of AiF.ru

July 9, 2011 The double-deck motor ship "Bulgaria" (designed in Czechoslovakia in 1955) left the port in Kazan on a two-day cruise. At that time, the vessel was listing to starboard and the starboard engine was not working. There were 201 people on board the ship, including 147 passengers. The route of the ship passed through the waters of the Kuibyshev Reservoir.

July 10, 2011“Bulgaria” started from the city of Bolgar back to Kazan. At about 13:30 Moscow time, at a distance of less than 3 km from the shore, the ship gave a strong list to the starboard side, as a result of which water rushed into the open portholes. The sinking of the ship happened very quickly. Less than 2 minutes later, "Bulgaria" turned over on its right side and sank. The crew members did not have time to send distress signals, as the radio room was immediately flooded. 79 people were able to get to the surface. The dry cargo ship Arbat and the barge Danube-66 passed by the wrecked liner, but, as the investigation found out, the captains of these ships did not stop to provide assistance to the victims. At about 2:30 p.m., the cruise ship Arabella approached the crash site, and its crew members began a rescue operation. The survivors were given first aid; the seriously injured were sent to a hospital in Kazan. Specialists from the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations, psychologists and rescuers from the Leader Center team arrived at the crash site. Diving work has begun in the flooded area.

The Investigative Committee opened a criminal case under Article 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Violation of traffic safety rules and operation of railway, air and sea transport,” and a commission was created to investigate the circumstances of the disaster.

Raised "Bulgaria". Photo: AiF

July 11, 2011 Investigative checks began on the owner and lessee of the ship "Bulgaria", since, according to the Volga Transport Prosecutor's Office, the cruise ship did not have a license to transport passengers and was sailing in violation of the technical regulations for the operation of the ship. President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev gave orders to begin unscheduled total inspections of civilian passenger ships.

July 12, 2011 year was declared a day of mourning throughout Russia, funerals of the identified bodies of the dead began. In relation to the director of ArgoRechTour LLC, the subtenant of the ship Svetlana Inyakina and expert of the Kama branch of the Russian River Register Yakova Ivashova, who issued permission to operate the Bulgaria, a criminal case was initiated. In addition, cargo ships were identified that did not provide assistance to the Bulgaria in distress.

July 13, 2011 Diving work continued at the site where the ship sank. Suspects Inyakina and Ivashov were temporarily detained in a pre-trial detention center at the request of senior investigator Sergei Chernyshov.

July 15, 2011 The search work of divers on the sunken ship ended, 114 bodies of the dead were discovered, of which 20 were men, 66 women and 28 children. Search work continued downstream of the Volga River. Preparatory work has begun to raise the Bulgaria. A criminal case was opened against the captains of two ships who did not provide assistance to the victims, Alexander Egorov (the ship “Dunaysky-66”) and Yuri Tuchin (the ship “Arbat”) under Article 270 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

16 - July 21, 2011 Work was underway to raise the sunken ship. The crew of the ship "Arabella" and employees of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations were awarded medals "For the Commonwealth in the Name of Rescue."

22 - July 25, 2011 Inyakina and Ivashov were preliminary charged with committing a crime under Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The Bulgaria's hull was partially raised above the water level. There were difficulties with sealing and pumping water from the ship, and it was decided to tow the ship aground to the Kirelsky backwater. After towing and work on the ship, 8 more bodies were discovered, those who were previously considered missing. The search work ended, as all those killed on the ship were found and identified.

August 9, 2011 The Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan found ArgoRechTour LLC guilty of committing an administrative offense under Article 14.1 of the Administrative Code (“Carrying out business activities in the field of transport without a license”) and imposed a fine of 50,000 rubles.

August 15, 2011 The results of an investigation into the circumstances of the ship's crash were published on the Rostransnadzor website. The main reasons were identified as a technical malfunction of the vessel, violations of safety rules by the shipowner and captain of the liner, low qualifications and negligence of crew members.

August 16, 2011 Investigative authorities detained the head of the Kazan department of Rostransnadzor, Irek Timergazeev, and the chief inspector of the department, Vladislav Semyonov, on suspicion of criminal negligence - they gave a positive conclusion about the readiness of the Bulgaria vessel to transport passengers. The next day, the suspects were taken into custody and charged under Art. 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

November 21, 2011 In the Kama-Ustinsky Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, hearings began in the case against the captain of the dry cargo ship "Arbat" Yuri Tuchin. On December 26, the court ruled to find Tuchin guilty and pay a fine of 130,000 rubles.

December 6, 2011 Hearings were held in the case against the captain of the Danube-66 vessel, Alexander Egorov, but it was decided to move the trial to Kazan, where most of the victims and witnesses lived.

February 28, 2012 The captain of the ship "Dunaysky-66" was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of 190,000 rubles.

May 11, 2012 The Russian Investigative Committee announced the completion of the investigation into the circumstances of the crash of the Bulgaria. It became known that the senior mate of the ship's captain, Ramil Khametov, was brought to criminal responsibility. Svetlana Inyakina was charged with providing services that do not meet the requirements for the safety of life and health of consumers, violating safety rules for the operation of inland water transport and violating labor protection rules. Yakov Ivashov was charged with illegally issuing official documents that allowed “Bulgaria” to carry out passenger transportation, and abuse of official powers. Ramil Khametov was accused of violating traffic safety rules and operating water transport, and Irek Timergazeev and Vladislav Semyonov were accused of abuse of power.

January 11, 2013 investigators stated that the case is about the crash of the Bulgaria in the Republic of Tatarstan in February 2013. The materials of the criminal case amounted to more than 80 volumes.

February 11, 2013 in relation to the assistant captain of the Bulgaria, the director of ArgoRechTur LLC, an expert of the Russian River Register and employees of Rostransnadzor.

May 6, 2013 at 10:00 Moscow time Moskovsky District Court in Kazan. During the hearing, the judge granted the petition of Semenov and Timergazeev due to the fact that the defendants needed additional time to familiarize themselves with the case materials.

Meeting May 27, 2013 was delayed, the consideration was postponed to the next day. On May 28, the indictment against Yakov Ivashov was read out, and the meeting ended. Further consideration of the case was postponed, and a final ruling in the case has not yet been made.

“At the same time, torpedo weapons experts were at best modestly silent about these exotic versions, and more often stated that this was nonsense. That no rudder feather, under any impact, is capable of crushing the torpedo tube (a thick-walled steel pipe with additional stiffening ribs) so that the torpedo in it collapses - it is more likely that the rudder feather itself will fall off than this will happen. An even more fantastic option is the torpedo igniting inside the torpedo tube and knocking out the back cover. You just need to know the structure of the torpedo tube. The back cover is held in place by a ratchet lock - a reliable design of special strength. And the front cover opens roughly like a door. So, if an explosion occurs inside the torpedo tube, all its energy, along with pieces of the torpedo, will splash out, and not inside the compartment.”

And here again a tragedy on the water, but this time a river one, with almost the same number of victims. In the Kama Ustye area, the crash of the passenger ship "Bulgaria", which was making a pleasure tourist voyage between Kazan and the Bolgara pier, took the lives of 122 people. And here are the conclusions that Rostransnadzor came to at the end of the investigation:

“Rostransnadzor has completed the investigation into the circumstances of the death of the motor ship “Bulgaria”. The main conclusion of the experts: the ship sank due to violation of safety requirements, low qualifications of the crew and a number of gross mistakes. The immediate cause of the tragedy was the open portholes - through them, tens of tons of water entered the ship’s holds in a matter of minutes...

...As stated in the document, the immediate cause of the ship's flooding was a significant decrease in its stability in stormy conditions due to water entering the ship's premises through open side windows and the formation of a free surface of water in the compartments below the main deck, which led to a significant list of the ship to the right board and the subsequent flooding of the Bulgaria.

Experts also discovered four holes in the ship’s hull on the starboard side, at the location of the wastewater collection tank, with a total area of ​​44 square meters. cm.

With every wrong decision and action of the captain, the roll to the right side became more and more - first 4°, then 9° and 13°. As a result, the total amount of water entering the ship’s compartments reached 125 tons per minute.

“As a result, all the portholes and part of the main deck on the starboard side were submerged in water. Water began to flow intensively into the interior of the vessel through open portholes, splash doors and entrance hatches on the main deck. Over the next 5-7 seconds, there was a sharp increase in the list from 15 to 20 degrees, as a result of which the ship capsized on the starboard side and sank,” Rostransnadzor concluded. (Information copied from the Internet).

For those who are accustomed to looking at everything superficially, without subjecting it to logical analysis, this version may seem convincing, but my opinion is that we were offered another “Fantastic Option”. Besides me, on Internet forums, commenting on the findings of Rostransnadzor, a lot of surprises were expressed: “Who was this written for?!”, “They are hiding something from us again,” “None of these versions would lead to a disaster,” etc. I will try to justify my position, especially since I had the opportunity to work on river fleet vessels for nine navigations, and I have an idea of ​​the subject of the conversation.

Immediately after the disaster, the media started talking about the dilapidation of the ship, which was 56 years old, a malfunction of one of the diesel generators, a list to starboard, stormy weather, due to which gusts of wind toppled the ship onto the starboard side, and water began to flood through the open portholes, which ultimately led to the tragedy. But for some reason they stubbornly kept silent about the main reason, which suggested itself - a hole?.. After all, the ship sank in just three minutes, as if it had been torpedoed! But because the question immediately arose: how could a hole occur when the depth of the shipping channel was 20 meters? Moreover, this is not an ocean, but a river reservoir in which submarines do not sail... It was this question, in my deep conviction, that became the main reason for the persistent imposition on public opinion of clearly fictitious and unreal causes of the disaster. True, before raising the ship, they still said through gritted teeth: “A hole is unlikely, but this version cannot be ruled out.” That is, from these words it was already possible to conclude that the version of the hole was doomed from the very beginning. But what then are the doubts of the author of these lines based on?

After finishing my military service in 1973, I came to work as a marine electrical mechanic on cargo ships of the river fleet. At that time, there were still a lot of pre-revolutionary wheeled steamboats, which we called “laptezhniki”, still sailing along the Volga and Kama. One of them was built in one thousand eight hundred and ninety, I don’t remember what year. The ship was 80 years old and was decommissioned a few years later. So "Bulgaria" by the standards of the river fleet is not that old yet. And let's deal with portholes and stormy weather.

I had the opportunity to work on bulk carriers of the 11th and 576th projects, built at the Krasnoye Sormovo plants in Gorky and Galati (Romania), respectively. The length of the vessel is 93 meters, the carrying capacity is 2000 tons with a draft of 2.80 meters. The ship consisted of 5 holds - 4 cargo holds, and the 5th contained an engine room, above which there was a superstructure with cabins and a wheelhouse. There were portholes only in the engine room and in the summer they were almost always open. But when we went out into the reservoirs, and there was even a slight breeze, the watch commander gave the order to close them. The reservoir has a large mirror of water, which contributed to the formation of large waves that could wash into the portholes, which were close to the surface of the water. Therefore, personally, I cannot believe that the engine room windows could be open, especially since the “Bulgaria” overlooked the Kama Ustye area, where the width of the Kuibyshev Reservoir is quite respectable. Such things are always under the watch commander's control, especially since on passenger ships the watch is also kept in the engine room. The waves won’t splash a lot of water quickly into the MO, and the portholes can be quickly closed.

In 1977 I worked on the ship Gomel. In October, we walked down the Volga with bulk cargo at full draft along the Kuibyshev Reservoir. Having passed the Kama Ustye, we received a storm forecast and, not reaching Ulyanovsk, decided to wait in the Dolinovka shelter.

The shelter is located on the right bank and is a small bay where you can hide from bad weather. Other ships did so, but for some reason our captain decided to stand at the entrance to the shelter. And the wind picked up well towards night and due to the surf under the right bank, the wave height in this place began to reach 3 meters! Our type of vessel was allowed a lake class wave height of 2 meters. It was this wave height that was allowed for “Bulgaria”.

The team was having dinner in the dining room, we were swaying. At this time, a strong blow of a wave was heard on the starboard side and the sound of broken glass was heard. We all ran out into the corridor and saw water flowing out of the cabin doors into the corridor. I ran to my cabin, which was on the starboard side. The cabin consisted of two halves. The windows of the cabins at that time were approximately the same as in passenger cars: one frame was with glass, and the second with wooden slats of blinds.

I jumped into the cabin and ran to the broken window of the first half and saw a picture that instantly erased the romance of the shipwreck and a feeling of horror mixed with a feeling of helplessness settled in my soul! A wave was coming straight towards me, the crest of which was higher than the window of my cabin and I had never seen anything like it! And although it was already dark, the light cast by the cabins and parking lights illuminated the space near the ship, allowing one to see the wave. I instinctively pulled the frame from the blinds, trying to isolate myself from this nightmare. The next moment, a stream of water, along with splinters of blind slats, threw me towards the front door! There was immediately knee-deep water in the cabin, and I, along with a stream of water, like from a bathtub, wet from head to toe, got out into the corridor along which water was already walking, pouring out not only from my cabin. Having crossed the threshold, water poured out through the open door on the left side. We were rocked from side to side, and through the window of the red corner we could see how the waves literally covered the lids of the holds, rolling over them. Having sank under the weight of the water shaft, the ship, like a float, floated up again. Then we turned around, and the side wave changed to a keel wave, causing the ship’s hull to bend like a viper crawling over rocks.

The first mate gave the command and the second navigator and the helmsman, putting on life jackets, went to weigh anchor. And after each wave hit, the bow of the ship seemed to explode and the windlass (bow winch for lifting anchors) was completely covered by the next wave. But the guys successfully completed the task, and we set off.

On the ship's way, the wave turned out to be much smaller, we were simply rocked and we headed towards Ulyanovsk.

As you can see, the ship found itself in conditions where the wave height exceeded the permissible one and a half times and nothing serious happened to it (except for damaged windows). Due to the air cushion contained in the engine room and holds, the ship behaved like a float, and in principle could not drown. In order to sink it, it would take a lot of time until a sufficient amount of water would gradually flow through the cracks between the covers of the holds, or the hull would burst due to strong deflections.

Thus, due to stormy weather, the ship cannot sink quickly. Even if it capsizes, it will continue to float due to the air cushion of the engine room, bow and stern luggage and holds. The same was stated by the captain of a similar ship, who said in an interview: “Even if there is a shipwreck, there are still 30-40 minutes until the ship sinks.” Even if the portholes of the cabins located below the main deck were open, the waves of water would still not get inside quickly and much. Moreover, these were living quarters and they could not be connected in any way to the engine room, which means that the MO airbag plus luggage would not have allowed the Bulgaria to sink, especially so quickly.

Another remarkable fact. 79 passengers were rescued, but only a few were interviewed. Moreover, everyone only talked about how they were directly involved in the rescue and nothing about how it all began. Of course, these shots were cut out. On the Internet, one of the rescued people talked about how he gave a detailed interview to television, but when he saw it, he said that he would not give any more, because almost everything was removed from him, and only minor details were left. But on the Internet there is a story from a boy who survived the accident in a music salon. Here's a copy of it:

“The story of one of the rescued children, 10-year-old Dinar Abdurakhmanov, is published on Friday by the publication Life News. He was the only child to survive from the children's room, who was picked up at the scene of the wreck by the rescue ship Arabella.

The boy is still in a state of deep shock. He told about what happened in the music salon “Bulgaria”, where up to 50 children were locked, on the instructions of a psychologist.

“Everyone started screaming and crying,” says the boy, “I started crying too, because I didn’t know what to do, I was very scared.” Suddenly a man burst into the room, broke the window and shouted loudly: “Run faster, jump out the window, the ship is sinking!” The panic in the cabin reached its limit. The frightened kids rushed through the open door in a crowd.

Dinar was saved by the fact that he was standing next to the porthole, broken by a man. Heeding the call, he immediately rushed into the water. Several years ago, his dad taught him to swim well, so he didn’t get confused in the water, and swam a good distance from the crater formed at the site of the ship’s sinking.

However, most of the children did not manage to escape, and this became the most shocking fact of the disaster.”

“The floor jerked sharply and the walls swayed” - this happens if there is a blow to the body or a collision with an obstacle. “At the children’s party, funny music was played, competitions were held, everyone was laughing,” that is, there was no storm, otherwise they would have been rocked, and there would have been no time for competitions. Everything happened quickly and unexpectedly.

In addition, the question arises: why did the captain drown? After all, according to the stories, he was in the wheelhouse at the time of the accident and was steering the ship, which means he had every opportunity to escape?..

In one of the TV reports, someone from the team said that the captain ran to look at the hole, but the footage was immediately interrupted. Then everything is logical. The captain ran to look at the hole and, perhaps, organize its repair, but did not imagine that it would turn out to be so large and the flooding would happen so quickly that he himself would not have time to save himself.

And when the divers were working to retrieve bodies from the sunken Bulgaria, they did not enter the engine room, declaring that “there is solid scrap metal there.” The correspondent commented on this information as the destruction that occurred during the disaster.

Initially it was reported that, having raised the Bulgaria, they would pump water out of it and then tow it to the dock. Even with the help of computer graphics, it was shown how a tug, having hooked the Bulgaria with a cable, would take it to the dock. But when they raised it, the decision changed. The manager of these works who gave an interview said that the ship would be stranded and the water would be pumped out... at the same time, he accidentally let slip: “ let's fix the right one board».

But the most convincing evidence of the presence of a hole in the bottom was that after pumping out the water, the Bulgaria was brought into the dock, continuing supported by two powerful floating cranes, as if there had been no pumping?.. After all, if the “Bulgaria” had sunk due to open portholes, and not a hole in the hull, then after pumping it would have been calmly, in tow, dragged to the dock, without the support of such powerful floating cranes, since there is no There shouldn't be any water leakage in the hull!..

And here is the report by Sergei Arsenyev of the RTR TV channel.

We see the Bulgaria in the dock, piled on the starboard side, which, according to the correspondent, “happened by chance, due to a coincidence of fatal circumstances.” Then Sergei, led by the investigator, leads us through the corridors and cabins, where real chaos reigns, awkwardly introducing us to the wheelhouse. It takes you into the engine room, but only shows the diesel engine, and only from above, and the rest of the engine room remains behind the curtain of this clearly staged action. Holes are shown, with the help of which the thickness of the metal was checked, which turned out to be normal.

But then the words sound: “The version of a large hole disappeared by itself, but there are many small ones.” And here the holes in the body are shown near the turn itself (the bend between the vertical and horizontal parts of the bottom). One of them is shown in close-up: almost rectangular in shape, with edges curved inwards and measuring about 2 inches. The hole was clearly caused by a blow from the side. And then the investigator shows several more holes stretching further along the hull, as if someone fired from an underwater machine gun.

Of course, these (shown) holes are not enough for the Bulgaria to sink in three minutes, although in this place the water pressure is very high and its flow is very intense. These holes could be repaired after pumping out the water, clogging, for example, the choppers and not using two powerful floating cranes, one of which was loaded up to 160 tons, to dock! Why was this floating crane hemorrhoid needed when docking? This means that there are still holes that are hidden from us “by chance, due to a coincidence of fateful circumstances,” behind a twist in the invisible part of the bottom. There may not be a large hole, “but there are many small ones,” but how many?.. There may be another dozen or more of them, which in total amount to one big one! But let’s not guess, but proceed only from known facts, which are enough to cast great doubt on the official version, which thinking people do not take seriously.

But why do official bodies need this secrecy?

Of course, the cause of the disaster was immediately clear, and therefore measures to conceal it were taken without any delay. In the situation with “Bulgaria”, the authorities decided to avoid the mistakes they made in the case of “Kursk” by missing a lot of information in the initial period. And the official bodies are forced to hide it, because the majority of society does not want to believe in any unidentified underwater objects, and this could cause a shock, with unpredictable consequences, if this is announced at the official level. But what then could have pierced the hull of the ship, when the depth under the keel was 20 meters, so that it sank in three minutes?! This is a river reservoir, but not an ocean, where you can blame an enemy submarine, as in the case of the Kursk... By the way, Hely4 told us something about the “enemy submarine” that is unofficially credited with sinking the Kursk:

[picture] Added 01/20/11 11:22

Nivyazochki...

I just came across this discussion yesterday, started reading it, and here are the first clues:

1) having arrived at the command post to take over duty on 08.13.00 at 08.35, I immediately joined the build-up of forces and communications equipment, due to the absence of the next communication session of the nuclear submarine "Kursk" (at 23:00 from the 12th to the 13th ). We built up, accepted reports... until 11.14. After which the replaced OD PUS of the Navy left for home.

in the message - “On August 12, at about 11:30, Norwegian seismologists recorded two tremors with a force of 1.5 on the Richter scale…………. Meanwhile, “K-141” did not get in touch, and by 11 pm the fleet was on alert.

2) Peter the Great discovered a submarine on the ground for the first time on 08/13/00 and I wrote a report about this in the journal at 16.31. After which, almost immediately a report was received that the discovered submarine had begun to move and that in size it was significantly inferior to the Kursk. "PV" began pursuit. He pursued until he received the order “Stop the pursuit of the submarine... return to the search for Kursk.” The destroyers that continued the pursuit of the submarine after the “PV” safely lost this submarine in less than an hour... And the “PV” continued the search because of the beginning storm, discovered Kursk already at 20:00, (I don’t remember exactly...) returning to almost the same place where Kursk was discovered.

The message says: “At about one o’clock in the morning on August 13, the rescue ship “Mikhail Rudnitsky” left the port, and a couple of hours later the cruiser “Peter the Great” established hydroacoustic contact with a large underwater object at a depth of 108 m.”

P.S. And in general, in this case, a lot of things were deliberately confused... and corrected in order to reduce the anger of the people, prevent a conflict with the United States, and just for good measure...

Why did the supposed American submarine spend the whole day near Kursk? After the collision, the submarine commander could have only one solution: to scramble as quickly and as far as possible. At a speed of 8 knots (14.5 km/h), which is known from other sources, the proposed American submarine could travel more than 300 km. But for some reason she began to move precisely at the moment of discovery, as if she had been waiting for this.

Why did the crew of the supposed American boat behave absolutely incompatible with elementary logic, that is, they did everything in order to discover themselves, and even at the scene of a crime for which they could be severely punished?!

Why modern destroyers, equipment that allows you to see even fish, “this submarine was safely lost in less than an hour...”?!

But because, no matter how much we wanted, it was not a submarine, but an object of unearthly origin that dissolved into another dimension, forcing our ships and aircraft to search right up to the Norwegian border. This behavior of the object is explained by the fact that the Higher Powers took responsibility for the death of the Kursk, because Their goal was not to destroy the submarine cruiser, but to give us THE OMEN in this manner. To us who have fallen into a coma of the pride of our minds.

There are no destroyers or any ships with suitable detection equipment in the river reservoir, but the analogy with the Kursk really suggests itself. Indeed, in both cases, the official bodies show a frank desire for imagination when voicing a version of the disaster, and the holes were also made by unknown objects, which is confirmed by documents that fell into the hands of the MK correspondent who interviewed:

“S51-86 frames have corrugation of the zygomatic belt with breaks: 80sp. size 10x10mm, 83sp. size 50x80mm, 85sp. size 10x20mm, 86sp. size 10x10mm. Based on the nature of the damage, it can be concluded that they were received while the vessel was moving in reverse. The damage sites are located in the area of ​​the main fuel tank. These damages are operational, which led to the flooding of the tank and the ship receiving an additional heeling moment to the starboard side...”

No, this is impossible. During the raising of the Bulgaria, serious damage was indeed caused. But they are all indicated in the document. For example: “49–57 frame - deformation with rupture of the zygomatic sheet caused by the impact of the “towel” when lifting the vessel.” Or: “a hole measuring 900 by 500 mm, obtained from planting a tincture of a dock structure.” The commission draws attention to the fact that those same four holes were received precisely during the operation of the diesel-electric ship. Understand that if there is no flooding, the ship cannot sink to the bottom so quickly. There is a concept of unsinkability; all ships are designed in such a way that they remain buoyant even when two-thirds of the compartments are flooded. But here it turns out that the ship took on such a huge amount of water that this turn to the left and a sharp gust of wind was enough to sink.

“A hole measuring 900 by 500 mm” - this is exactly the hole that could sink Bulgaria in 3 minutes. The fact that it was formed “from landing on the rack of a dock structure”, in my opinion, is an obvious falsification. I've been to the dock, and I didn't see any racks there, because they simply have nothing to do there. Vessels brought into dock are placed on special keel blocks, which are freely dragged depending on the size of the vessel's hull. The dock deck itself is absolutely flat, which is clearly visible in the photo. And the “Bulgaria” was deliberately not placed on keel blocks and was piled on the starboard side in order to hide this very hole: 900 by 500 mm.

And in support of this version it is worth citing the words of one of the anonymous people:

“A friend of mine talked with a surviving passenger, she was on the upper deck and claims that there was a blow to some object and after that the ship began to sink - ask eyewitnesses. Do you really have the conscience to hush up the real causes of the disaster? God be their judge, I’m shocked.”

And here is the answer to the question: why was the “Bulgaria” docked not on keel blocks, but on the starboard side... Because the pumps did not have time to pump out the incoming water, which forced the ship to be supported by two powerful floating cranes. If the bottom were intact, or at least it was possible to repair the hole, then, having pumped out the water, it would be possible to tow the “Bulgaria” into the dock and place it as in the second photo, without hiding the bottom of the starboard side. That's why they put it in the dock so that it is possible to work with the bottom. But why is the obvious hole classified? This is a question for official sources.

We will start with an emergency message from Tatarstan - there the motor ship "Bulgaria" crashed on the Kuibyshev Reservoir. According to preliminary data, there were 188 people on board, 85 people were rescued, it is known for sure that one person was killed, about 100 people were missing.

Unfortunately, there are no exact figures; information from different sources is contradictory. The ship sank 3 kilometers from the coast. It is known for sure that there were families with children on board the cruise ship, which was the cause of the ship’s crash - it is not yet clear, but this crash is the largest river accident in the modern history of Russia.

The motor ship "Bulgaria" left Kazan for the city of Bolgars the night before. This is the administrative center of the Spassky district of Tatarstan. It is located on the banks of the Volga, 140 kilometers south of the capital of the republic. Today at 7 o'clock the ship arrived at its destination and at 11:00 departed back.

According to the head of the press service of the Volga regional center of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia Oleg Zugeev, at 13:58 the Crisis Management Center for the Republic of Tatarstan received a message that the motor ship "Bulgarin" sank in the Kamsko-Ustinsky district near the village of Syukeevo. According to him, an operational group of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, boats of the state inspection for small vessels are working on the site, an Mi-8 helicopter with diving equipment and four rescuers on board also flew to the scene of the tragedy, and a Mi-8 helicopter with an operational group of the Volga Regional Center of the Ministry of Emergency Situations is preparing for departure Russia.

The Ministry of Emergency Situations website published photographs showing rescuers combing the waters near the crash site. On the water there is some kind of blue object, very similar to the ladder that is used on medium-sized river ships to get to the pier. There are life rafts on the water here. Each of them is designed for 20 people.

Eyewitnesses say that at the time of the disaster it was raining heavily and lightning was flashing. At the same time, there was little excitement on the Volga.

In Kazan, in the river port, a handwritten list of those who were rescued was posted. It was these people who were taken on board the ship "Arabella". He was the first to come to the aid of those who were in the water. A representative of the company that owns the ship said that among those rescued were at least 7 children of primary school age.

It is too early to say how the disaster occurred. It is only known that the ship "Bulgaria" had previously repeatedly delayed voyages precisely for technical reasons.

The double-deck diesel-electric ship "Bulgaria" was built in 1955 in Czechoslovakia. In the past, several dozen similar ships plied the Volga. Now, experts say, there are only 3 of them left. The design of this ship does not provide for so-called safety compartments. That is, in them the hold is not divided into parts by waterproof partitions.