AN on-board explosion is shaping up to be the most likely cause of the Russian Metrojet crash over Egypt, with international experts in agreement a missile launch would have been detected on radar.
But Metrojet officials insist the A321, which was flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg before crashing in a mountainous part of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula on Saturday, could only break up midair because of “external factors.” All 224 people on board were killed, including 25 children.
Grainy video footage released by Islamic State as “proof” of their responsibility for shooting down the aircraft was yesterday dismissed as fake, and more likely to be images from a computer game.
Metrojet’s director of flights Alexander Smirnov said they have ruled out pilot error or a technical fault.
“There are no technical failures that could lead to the plane breaking up in the air,” he told a press conference in Moscow, before adding, “the only explanation is some kind of external action.”
When pressed for more details about the type of impact and what could have caused it, Mr Smirnov insisted that he was not at liberty to discuss details because the investigation was ongoing. He also did not explain whether he meant something had hit the plane or that some external factor caused the crash.
He said the plane began falling out of control and the pilots had no time to report the emergency situation.
“The crew totally lost control and for that reason there was not one attempt to get in contact and report on the accident situation on-board,” Mr Smirnov said.
The plane was “flying out of control — that is it wasn’t flying, it was falling,” he said.
“Apparently by that moment the plane had received significant damage to its construction that did not allow it to continue the flight.”
While stressing the need to wait for the findings of an investigation, Mr Smirnov said that he ruled out both a technical fault and human error.
“We rule out technical faultiness of the plane, we exclude a mistake by the pilot or the crew, the so-called human factor,” he said.
He said the plane was in “excellent technical condition” at the time of the accident.
The Moscow-based airline’s technical director also ruled out that damage to the plane while it was under previous ownership could have been a factor, saying that it had been regularly checked since.
Viktor Yung, another deputy director general of Metrojet, said the crew did not send a distress call and they did not contact traffic controllers before the crash.
Meanwhile, US aviation safety expert, Captain John Cox said the Islamic State claims seemed “very far fetched”.
“I think they are making a publicity grab,” he said. “A bomb is certainly possible, as is a mechanical fault.”
Terrorism expert at the Australian National University, Clive Williams agreed it was highly unlikely a missile brought down the Metrojet flight, and it was probably “something on board”.
“A missile launch would have almost certainly been picked up by Israeli radars,” he said.
“If the airliner was deliberately brought down, a bomb concealed on the Russian aircraft at Sharm el-Sheikh is a more credible scenario.”
Despite the doubt about Islamic State’s claims, international airlines including Emirates, Qatar, Lufthansa and Air Arabia continued to route flights around the Sinai Peninsula as a precaution.
AVLaw director Ron Bartsch, a former head of Qantas Safety, said the limited information being released by Russia made it very difficult for the rest of the world to learn the truth.
“I guess it really highlights the need for a better system of sharing safety-related information from a commercial air transport perspective, and the safety of the travelling public,” Mr Bartsch said.
“Until it’s actually been determined what is the cause of this particular accident, it’s going to create a lot of anguish among people contemplating travel.”
He said a system similar to that used for sharing weather information was needed for airlines.
“We do it very well in relation to weather but we’re not doing that in respect to other hazards related to aviation, and the emerging risk of another MH17 is becoming a very real issue,” Mr Bartsch said.
Capt Cox said conflicting information being released about the crash was only making matters worse for other airlines, and next of kin.
“One of the conflicts is the radio call to Air Traffic Control,” he said.
“If there was such a call, as reported earlier, than a bomb is unlikely. If there was no call as reported in recent hours, there is a possibility of a bomb.”
Metrojet has not released the cargo manifest for the aircraft and it remains unknown if potentially explosive material like lithium ion batteries were being carried.
In the case of the missing Malaysia Airlines’ flight MH370, more than 200kg of lithium ion batteries were among the cargo, making an on-board fire or explosion one of the more plausible theories.
Most airlines now refuse to transport lithium ion batteries because of the risk of overheating and burning.
No comments:
Post a Comment