I scoured open reporting and accident databases before drafting this piece. There are no credible reports or accident-record entries showing an Antonov An-22 test flight breaking up over the Ivanovo reservoir up to May 15, 2025. The type has been the subject of retirement and limited-operation reporting in 2024 and earlier, but a reservoir strike at Ivanovo is not recorded in public sources through that date.
A quick operational reality check for readers unfamiliar with the An-22: it is a Cold War era heavy turboprop, large, slow compared with modern jets, and uniquely capable for certain outsize loads. That profile is why a handful remained in service long after newer types entered the inventory. The type history and capabilities are well documented.
Context matters. In mid 2024 Russian sources and specialty publications reported plans to retire the An-22 fleet and that only a very small number remained operational into 2024. That makes any continued flying of the type noteworthy and worth extra scrutiny from both regulators and maintenance authorities.
Operational risk factors to keep front of mind
1) Age and life‑cycle stress: airframes measured in decades accumulate fatigue, corrosion, and out-of-production parts issues. For large turboprops like the An-22, cumulative flight hours, pressurization cycles, and the operational practice of hauling heavy or outsize loads increase structural risk if inspections or life‑limit replacements are deferred.
2) Post‑maintenance/test flight profile: test flights after heavy maintenance are high risk by design. Crews fly with engineers aboard, perform expanded envelope checks, and push systems that are normally exercised only occasionally. The critical period is initial climb and the low altitude portion of the sortie when an unrecoverable failure leaves little time or altitude for recovery.
3) Logistics and spare parts environment: operating legacy types depends on a robust supply chain for structural components and flight controls. When that supply chain is strained operators resort to workarounds that increase risk. Reporting on Russian aviation since 2022 has documented unconventional supply chains and cannibalisation of parts, a factor that raises the operational risk profile for any legacy airframe still flying.
4) Proven failure modes on this type: historical records show the An-22 fleet suffered several hull losses in earlier decades, with causes ranging from control system problems to loss of control in climb or cruise. Those past accidents remind investigators to treat control linkages, flap/elevator rigging, propeller and gearbox installations, and structural fittings as first-order items during a post‑maintenance test flight probe.
If a test flight goes wrong over a reservoir: immediate operational priorities
-
Rescue and recovery. Wet recoveries complicate evidence gathering. Rapidly task trained dive teams and forensic recovery specialists that can preserve control surface positions, actuator fragments, and maintenance documentation.
-
Securing maintenance records. For any post‑maintenance event the maintenance trail is primary evidence. Technical logs, signoffs, parts provenance, calibration stickers, torque records, and photographs of assemblies before and after fitment need to be collected immediately.
-
Preserve digital traces. Flight data and cockpit voice recorders, if fitted, are central. On older types the amount of recorded data may be limited, so also secure any ground-based radar, ADS‑B or SSR traces, local tower recordings, and witness video quickly before it disperses.
-
Control-systems first. On heavy lifters, linkages, servo actuators, and rigging errors are common culprits when a post‑maintenance event becomes catastrophic. Investigators should prioritize the mechanical continuity of pitch, roll and yaw control systems and the integrity of any recently worked-on hydraulics. Past An-22 losses underline that focus.
Practical lessons for operators and regulators
-
Treat every post‑maintenance flight as a high‑risk evolution. That means minimal test loads, an experienced crew with a clear emergency plan, and rescue assets on immediate standby.
-
Maintain an auditable parts provenance chain for legacy aircraft. When original spares are unavailable, document alternatives, non‑destructive test results, and engineering approvals in advance of release to service.
-
Use conservative test profiles. Initial flights should limit weight and maneuvering until a proven, documented baseline of systems reliability is reestablished.
-
Independent oversight. For rare, strategic types retained beyond expected retirement, require an independent engineering verification step and, where possible, third‑party witness to critical maintenance milestones.
What investigators will need if a reservoir impact did occur
A water impact destroys evidence fast. Expect rapid contamination, loss of small parts, and difficulty reconstructing the final control positions. Promptly recover the airframe portions that show fracture surfaces. Metallurgical analysis of fracture faces often distinguishes overload from preexisting failure. A rigorous chain of custody for recovered items and records is essential to separate human factors from material failure.
Closing and a straight practical note
At time of writing there are no verified reports of an An-22 breaking up over the Ivanovo reservoir through May 15, 2025. That absence does not mean the issues I highlight should be ignored. The An-22 is an uncommon type, and when rare heavy lifters fly, they deserve the same conservative maintenance discipline and tightly controlled test regimes used by modern transport fleets. Treat the aircraft with respect, control the test environment, and assume inspections you might skip on younger airframes are mandatory. That approach keeps crews alive and prevents an accident from becoming a strategic loss.
If you want, I will prepare a focused checklist for a post‑maintenance test flight for heavy transports that operators, base commanders, or investigators can use on the flight line.