Six weeks after the Russian airliner crash in Sinai that claimed 224 lives, Egypt's civil aviation ministry has issued a preliminary report of its investigation. This has prompted some misleading stories in the media that Egypt is either flatly denying a terrorist connection or at least insisting there is no evidence of it. In fact, the actual report says neither.

What the report does say is that the Egyptian investigating committee "did not receive up till now any information indicating unlawful interference, consequently the committee continues its work regarding the technical investigation".

In other words, the committee is pretending not to be aware of suspicions that a bomb brought down the Metrojet Airbus and is thus proceeding in robotic fashion, treating its task as a routine accident investigation.

The report talks about how a team "spent about 30 hours in removing 38 computer units belonging to the airplane" for specialised analysis and how Cairo University provided "a three dimensional advanced camera to assist in making a record for the status and shape of the wreckage and its relative positions at the impact site".

Egyptian investigators are also combing through the service history of the plane: "The technical status, and the detailed repairs that were carried out on the airplane, its structure, systems and engines since the date of production up to the date of the accident, are being studied now."

This is necessary work, regardless of what caused the crash, and it could ultimately reinforce the bomb theory if the Egyptians fail to come up with a plausible technical cause. But the disclosure that Egyptian investigators are not directly considering the possibility of a bomb suggests they are wilfully going about the job with their eyes wide shut.

Nevertheless, the report does not totally close the door to investigating a terrorist connection at some point in the future. Its wording implies the position might change if someone – it's not clear who – were to provide "information indicating unlawful interference".

The main problem hampering the investigation is that there are important vested interests at stake. For Egypt, confirmation of a bomb would indicate gross failure by a regime which claims to put security above all else, not to mention any further damage to the country's beleaguered tourism industry. Russia, on the other hand, favours the bomb explanation which exonerates its airline and also has some propaganda value in connection with its military intervention in Syria.

One of the earliest theories put forward, almost immediately after the crash, was that the plane could have broken up in mid-air because of weakness in its airframe resulting from a tail strike 14 years earlier. This is not as implausible as it might sound. There have been two previous crashes attributed to a tail strike that occurred years earlier – Japan Airlines Flight 123 in 1985 and Japan Airlines Flight 123 in 1985.

Evidence to support that theory may yet be found in the Airbus's repair records and metallurgical analysis of wreckage from the tail area. But there would obviously be no point in pursuing that further if clear evidence emerged of a bomb on board.

Russia already claims to have such evidence. It says its own tests have revealed traces of explosives on bodies and luggage. Several western media reports, based on Russian sources, have also suggested that a bomb had been placed in the lifejacket compartment under seat 30a or 31a in the doomed aircraft.

Unfortunately, although Russian officials have been emphatic in blaming a bomb they have been no more forthcoming than the Egyptians about their side of the investigation. As yet, whatever evidence they have to support their claims has not been made available for public scrutiny. At the same time, the Egyptian investigators' reluctance to do any tests that might confirm (or eliminate) the presence of a bomb also leaves them in no position to refute the Russian claims.

Unless something changes, the investigation looks set to rumble on interminably, with little willingness to cooperate on either the Russian or the Egyptian side. 

There is, however, a wild card in the shape of the Islamic State. IS claims it brought the plane down with a bomb and has promised, at some point, to say how it did so. In November it issued a photograph of what it said was the explosive device. If its claims are true it might further embarrass the Sisi regime by providing more details. But then, that might look too much like IS siding with Russia.
  
   
Posted by Brian Whitaker
Tuesday, 15 December 2015