There is now a link to a personal blog (of a person who seems to be an insider in the factory) appeared at the Echo of Moscow internet site.
He seems to be very angry, blames in the accident firing of qualified factory personnel back in 1993, well, rather, mass dismissal due to perestroyka, he does not name the reason of the crash direct but there is a phrase there "... so now is no wonder that a wing falls off."
Other home ideas are two Myanmar pilots in the command who were not run through obligatory trainng on simulators before the flight, but began their training right in the air.
so do we have confirmation of this before we start worrying ?
This is from Simon Hradecky's Avherald.com:
Quote:
Russia's Emergency Ministry (MCHS) confirmed finding debris of the aircraft about 3km from the actual crash site, the airplane began to break up in flight. Both crash site and debris site have been cordoned off.
I checked the MCHS sight and couldn't find anything about separate debris fields, however.
"...two Myanmar pilots in the command who were not run through obligatory trainng on simulators before the flight, but began their training right in the air."
Wow. Just like we used to do it. So that makes a wing fall off?
It's certainly a possibility. Question is, did the wing fail because of a manufacturing fault, or was it overstressed in flight due to pilot actions. The answer will come out in the investigation which MAK are now carrying out.
1. Wikipedia refers Simon Hradecky's Avherald.com for the piece on detached wing.
2. Wikipedia refers to FlightGlobal when saying "The accident has been compared to the December 2002 crash of an Antonov An-140 in Iran.[6]" FlightGlobal's text says: "The loss of the aircraft is uncomfortably reminiscent of Antonov's previous airliner programme, the An-140 turboprop, an early production example of which - flown by Kharkov-based manufacturer KSAMC's test pilots - crashed in Iran in December 2002." Not wanting to say this is not good journalism on FlightGlobal's part, but the Iran accident was "While descending towards Isfahan in an area of poor visibility, the aircraft collided with a mountain" according to ASF database.
Those were just two examples.
One is well advised to accept speculation as speculation, at least when the source priority is speed of communication, while conclusive information is not available. Discussion on speculation should not, however, be restricted, just identified as such.
Sigh. Flightglobal's comparison with loss of the An-140 is nothing to do with the cause of the accident, but the fact that both programmes lost an airframe having barely started serial production. That's all.
