and airlines in the game are flying this thing? seriously, why would any pax pay to go on that POS.
Well,then why should any airline fly DC-10, Comet, or what about the ill fated bulkhead of the 747 like with JAL in 1985 or the total fuselage collapse of a China Airlines 747 in 2002, where the plane totally disintegrated mid air? Are those POS too as you so nicely put it? 
Lets not forget also that many Soviet planes like the IL-76 and Tu-154 are good quality planes. They are labor intensive and their engines are not the best out there (they can suck a lot of fuel), but in the right hands, they actaully can fly well as they're built like pickup trucks in a way. Remember, since the geography of the Soviet Union was mostly rural, most of them needed a requirement to land at grass fields or land with the gear up and sustain minimal damage. Most hull losses occur due to pilot error or neglegence by certain crews (maint or cockpit), just like their Western Counterparts (AA 191 is an example).
Reading those ASN reports, all I have to say is this:
I highly doubt that the engineers designed the planes to go literally through mountains, other planes and buildings (all 3 count as pilot error), they also were not designed to magically repair itself after being shot at by fighters or being fired at by a Shoulder fired SAM or having a broken cog wheel. A good chunk of those reports also report that the plane was way overloaded too, which is another pilot error.
One of those was not a hull loss at all either, but a Hijacking of some terrorists demanding to go to Isreal (the one that happened in 1988 with a Aeroflot aircraft.)
Reading all 59 of those, I don't see any constant problems with the plane itself. Most of those flights were vitims of crew error (such as accedentally slamming into a mountain or overloading and not being able to climb.)
