In contact to a leaking platform, an unnamed Egyptian official has provided new information on the case of the passenger aircraft that went missing over the Mediterranean. Due to the rapid loss in mid flight height monitored in the incident, investigators had thought of a bomb attack as the most likely cause of the crash. But now an inside view of Cairo‘s vast airline conglomerate indicates gross management failures as an even more realistic scenario.
The official said the aircraft had been a prototype obtained from the European market for testing in ever-day use as to weigh a larger order of the same model. There was no ethical concern with testing on customers since the airplane type is in regular use where it was obtained from, and national regulations were to a purposeful extent variable he insisted.
The Egyptian government assumed that the only thing to be tested was the specific suitability for the Egyptian market and all technical issues had already been taken care of at European standards. When delivered the plane had passed a review by an experienced testing pilot in the fleet and nothing seemed wrong, unless maybe that Egyptair‘s load schedule might be better adjusted to with bigger wings or another model.
But it turned out to be a technology in which every configuration issue quickly transforms itself into a reliability issue, although the configuration had not been changed. It became clear from debris investigations that the metal parts keeping the engines on the wings were made of an alloy that would not stand the temperature difference between their ends. An investigation of fissures in the debris had come to the result that if there was a bomb somewhere else on the plane, the official said, the substantial weaknesses had occurred independently before it.
Already under European conditions and business schedules the reliability of the metal would be nearly exceeded, but at Egyptian temperatures and usage profiles it could not be relied upon any longer. So when the plane after a busy day was back on route to Cairo, an anchor of one of the engines broke due to temperature difference overstretch although it had been all but old stuff, and the component remained loosely connected to the remaining anchor. This the brought the machine into erratic movements like a truck that loses a wheel, until it lost course and the traction and virtually dropped out of the air and the radar as well.
The leaking platform said that the claim was plausible but there may be good reasons to retain fissure samples until the debris scan is fully through with all verifications. The leaker said that the significance of the incident was that it was not a manufacturing error but a management mistake, so it would not be sufficient to obtain a new plane like replacing a shoe that broke soon after purchase. The manager had placed the wrong order for the wrong metal for the component, since there were no qualified quality checks. The European aircraft market, he emphasised, was suffering development insufficiency due to the corruption ruling the sector in the backwater of the tax breaks served to the aviation industry there.
The taxation circumstances deliberately hampered development and research. Egypt was only offered the unreliable engine parts because the international market lacked transparent certification and verification procedures. Hence, with the mind blocked by getting the manufacture adjusted to financial speculations, the production manager purchased the wrong metal for the wrong purpose. According to the official that meant several things: First, an additional risk that could outmatch any risk from continued use of old planes. Second, a prototype error, since the risk profile included the same kind of mistake to be made again and again. Third, any other consequences of the insufficiency that might not be desirable.
The official said he was leaking the findings in order to signify to a reluctant government that it was not a good idea to blame the loss on angry people with wristwatches as to place a huge order for stuff of questionable quality and to serve the taste of some officials. He said seen from a general public health perspective it was better to remain with the existing fleet, though new developments may be more efficient, and make a change only when it can be kept up without entrapping oneself in monopoly dependencies.
He said he was leaking because he expected the Cairo government to issue a list of recommendations to European regulators and lawmakers how to enable the proper development of aircraft. The leaker added that he knew the problem from baby bottles that burst when filled with hot water and his family had changed to these made of special glass suitable for the purpose, but apparently European aircraft producers were not aware thereof. He concluded that personally he would disavow any purchase of European aircraft just like the Egyptian special forces refuse the use of rope which could not be properly traded across the world market with reliable certifications even when it appeared spotless.
A leak evaluation said a problem of the described kind could only be solved by complete remake beginning at a regulatory level and a complaint-and-response procedure would not be sufficiently likely to bring about a spotless product to chose, so the risk pointed out by the leaker was significant enough for a break. It concluded the findings presented were possible explanations both for a technical crash and distraction bomb. Aviation industry mouthpieces declined to comment on pretexts of patent security.