French investigators struggling to explain 2016 spy-plane crash

A progress report on the investigations into the crashing of a reconnaissance aircraft operated by the French defence ministry is yet to identify a likely explanation for the plane’s abrupt crash.

On 24 October last year, the modified Merlin IV aircraft took off from the Malta International Airport at 7.19am spending only ten seconds in the air before crashing in Safi, killing all five on board.

Initially reported to have been on a Frontex mission, it later transpired that the aircraft was owned by Lux company CAE aviation – a private contractor specialising in aerial surveillance and parachuting.

The mission was said to have been a French Customs operation tracking human and drug trafficking routes.

A progress report on the investigations, the French BEA-D (Le Bureau Enquetes Accidents Defense – Air) outlines excludes a number of possible factors that it could exclude as having cause the fatal crash, but does not suggest any likely cause.

The aircraft was operated by a 30-year-old former French military pilot, together with a second surveillance pilot, 70.

Both men’s last flight on the aircraft was four days earlier, on the 20 October 2016. Both had Federal Aviation Administration licences. In addition to the two pilots, a tactical coordinator and two “operators” were on board.  The aircraft’s maintenance was performed by CAVOK, a subsidiary of CAE, in July and September that year. Modifications were made to the plane in March 2016.

While the investigation is still ongoing, with an analysis of the propulsion systems, some flight instruments and the fuselage, among others, still pending, the report opines that at this stage, some scenarios are being considered unlikely, if not outright rejected.

The BEA-D rejected the possibility that one of the flight crew seats may have come unlocked at rotation, as they have the possibility that the plane’s dive was caused by a bird strike or turbulence from a preceding aircraft. According to the report, the aircraft’s Stall Avoidance System indicator on the Warning and Caution panel was lit red but states that “this information alone does not explain the event”.

Moreover, investigators stated that the “the hypothesis of glare from the sun contributing to the accident could not be rejected”, adding however that “the sun alone cannot be the cause of the accident”.

Once pending tests have been completed, and depending on their results, “additional investigations in the technical field and that of organizational and human factors” were envisaged by the report.