disaster night
A Tu-104A, with the registration USSR-42379, departed from Domodedovo in Moscow for Chita on the evening of May 17, 1973. On board were 72 passengers and 9 crew members. Flight 109 was a full, familiar leg of the schedule, routinely serving travelers returning from business, vacations, and family visits.
At 03:36 Moscow time on May 18, the aircraft commander, Nikolay Obodyansky, relayed a threat to the dispatcher, reporting that a passenger had menaced the flight attendants and demanded a route change. He appended a coded distress signal to his message. The aircraft flew at an altitude of about 6600 meters when radio communication was lost two minutes later and the radar blip disappeared. A few hours later, search crews located debris about 97 kilometers from Chita; a Mi-8 helicopter uncovered fragments scattered over roughly 10 hectares. The cockpit was found on the northern slope of Hundunai Hill. West of that site, a kilometer away, rescuers spotted the lower fuselage with engines, while the tail section stretched several kilometers to the northwest. The aircraft wreckage, along with the landing gear, was eventually recovered in full.
The crew members—the pilots and the flight engineer—were found seated in the cockpit, their bodies shattered by the impact. One deceased passenger, a military officer, had to be retrieved from a spruce canopy. Nearby lay a woman cradling a child, and other remains were scattered at the crash site.
“No mistake should be made”
Initial findings pointed to a deliberate act. Investigators concluded an improvised explosive device had been used. The official report described an explosion of shellless high explosive roughly five and a half to six kilograms near the right emergency hatch of the first cabin. The prosecutorial office undertook a detailed autopsy program to determine which passengers triggered the device, implying the assailant needed close proximity to the bomb.
Forensic teams from Chita, Irkutsk, and Ulan-Ude coordinated a meticulous effort to identify the bomber. Early the next day, investigators located a man aged 30 to 35, without hands and with deformities. Forensic expert Vil Akopov later recalled the forensic reconstruction that followed, describing extensive trauma to the torso and limbs, and the distinctive skull injuries that helped confirm identity. The perpetrator bore both blast injuries and gunshot wounds, a combination that raised questions about the sequence of events and the weapon used.
Officials quickly noted the importance of avoiding missteps. A line of inquiry, including a rushed assumption about a lone attacker, was set aside as investigators gathered more evidence. In the days that followed, hundreds of law enforcement and forensic specialists participated in the process of identifying the assailant, including the painstaking facial reconstruction of the skull using splints and careful suturing of soft tissue with nylon thread. The operation occurred under tight secrecy; the morgue and surrounding facilities were closely monitored, and the remains were later transported to Moscow for cremation.
Accounts from officials emphasized the scale of the response. Factories supplied zinc coffins, and transport teams coordinated the movement of remains to burial sites. In the ensuing weeks, relatives sought to say farewell, though access to morgues was restricted while the investigations remained sensitive. These details reflect the extraordinary measures taken in the wake of the disaster, as described by a later forensic expert who documented the severity of the casualties and the procedural adaptations that followed.
I wanted to be a diplomat
Through a combination of investigative persistence and forensic technology that was available at the time, researchers created a clearer portrait of the bomber. A photograph was shared with security authorities, leading to the identification of the attacker as a 32-year-old man from Kirovabad in Azerbaijan (present-day Ganja). The process also revealed that he had previously served in Transbaikalia as a digger and had recently worked in road construction, where several kilograms of explosives were reportedly missing before the attack. Explosive fragments and a bomb draft were recovered from the suspect’s residence.
Psychological analyses indicated that the motive stemmed from personal failure and thwarted ambitions. The bomber had aspired to enter a prestigious academy and pursue diplomacy, but language barriers and poor performance blocked his path. A friend later conveyed that the individual perceived the failure as an insult and openly contemplated relocation to China in his later statements.
police on board
Following the bomber’s identification, investigator Valery Zikanov clarified the sequence of events. In 1973, passenger screening was not yet uniform at many airports, and a ban on board remained a possibility that could be exploited. As the aircraft climbed, Rzayev, the bomber, confronted a flight attendant with a bomb and directed the crew to change course toward China. Since the early 1970s, border-adjacent flights included armed officers in plain clothes to deter hijackings and monitor sensitive routes.
On board was a young sergeant, Vladimir Yezhikov, who sat in the front row behind the cockpit. He carried a service weapon and later retrieved the Makarov pistol found at the crash site. When the flight attendant conveyed Rzayev’s demands, Yezhikov and others attempted to calm the situation with negotiations, but the attacker struck a officer in the stomach and rushed toward the cockpit with the explosive in hand. In the ensuing confrontation, Yezhikov took drastic action to stop the attacker by firing at him. Competing narratives exist on what happened next, with some attributing the explosion to the bomber after the shot, while others suggesting the blast occurred as the device was compromised. Investigators eventually concluded the bomb likely operated with a reverse fuse, detonating after the attacker ceased pressing the trigger.
The Tu-104 disaster stands as the largest terrorist attack in Soviet history by the toll, with 81 lives lost. Its impact spurred a sweeping overhaul of airport security, including more thorough passenger and baggage screening before boarding. The practice of escorting flights by plainclothes officers was reevaluated for effectiveness and safety. Indirectly, the tragedy paved the way for the creation of a special KGB division focused on countering hijackings and rescuing hostages, a program that would influence security planning for years to come.
The security framework saw further revisions after the August 24, 2004 tragedy, when two Domodedovo flights were brought down almost simultaneously. Aviation experts emphasised that guard measures are essential and that human factors remain a challenge. Modern security systems now feature comprehensive screening of passengers and baggage, alongside reinforced cockpit doors designed to prevent unauthorised access. While the risk can never be eliminated entirely, layered safeguards significantly reduce the likelihood of a repeat incident, and authorities continue to assess and adapt procedures to maintain safety while recognizing the unpredictable nature of threats.