Most aviation troubles do not stem from a single fault but from a tangle of contributing factors. This perspective comes from Ilya Shatilin, founder of the FrequentFlyers.ru portal, discussing the incident on Aeroflot flight SU815 at Bangkok’s airport where a passenger died. The expert stresses that in real life, a combination of operational, environmental, and human elements often creates the conditions for such tragedies rather than one isolated error.
Shatilin points to several interacting pieces in the Bangkok case: the necessity of systems that rely on outside heat and ground power, the limited capacity of this power source, the extended wait times for buses, and the passenger’s health status. He emphasizes that there is little value in pinning blame on a single switch or decision point. Aeroflot itself conducted a thorough investigation to rule out negligence by any other party, underscoring a broader aim to understand how multiple factors combine to affect outcomes rather than assigning sole responsibility to one actor.
Following Aeroflot’s inquiry, the airline reported that the aircraft’s air conditioning system was functioning as designed. The preparation of the aircraft for flight complied with the applicable standard processes, specifically FAP 128. Simultaneously, the company highlighted that passenger services were delivered in strict alignment with FAP 82 and the associated operating standards. This framing illustrates how formal checklists, service standards, and mechanical reliability interact in real-world operations to shape safety and passenger experience.
Shatilin notes that passengers themselves cannot insure against every risk, particularly in extreme heat. For travelers sensitive to heat, the practical takeaway is to consider destinations with moderate climates or situations where cabin comfort can be better maintained. Nevertheless, he asserts that air travel remains among the safest modes of transport. He compares the relative risk with everyday hazards, noting that electric shocks at home claim more lives annually than aviation incidents, a point meant to contextualize risk without diminishing the seriousness of aviation events. The core message remains: a complete avoidance of travel is not a realistic option, and the industry has not yet mastered weather control, which is outside the scope of airline operations.
Aeroflot announced that the completed investigation materials were handed over to the Federal Air Transport Agency for review. The company’s position emphasizes that maintaining comfortable cabin conditions, including a stable temperature, is a mandatory component of the service standard the airline provides and will continue to uphold. This stance aligns with a broader commitment to passenger welfare and consistent service quality, even when unforeseen circumstances arise.
The released report reiterates a key principle: every operator must anticipate force majeure events, which can disrupt production and service delivery. These situations require robust contingency planning and flexible response protocols to minimize impact on schedules, safety, and passenger well-being. The incident at Bangkok serves as a reminder that no airline is completely immune to sudden, extreme temperature shifts within an aircraft, especially during taxiing or while parked, even when the cabin is equipped with full air conditioning.
In response to the Bangkok incident, Aeroflot stated that it has strengthened coordination with ground handling services at airports ahead of the upcoming peak travel period. This precaution reflects a proactive approach aimed at ensuring smoother operations and improved resilience against temperature-related challenges in hot climates. The airline reaffirmed its commitment to safety, reliability, and passenger comfort as central pillars of its service, while acknowledging the unpredictable nature of airport operations and weather conditions in a global travel network.