Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 98): FDR/CVR should be evaluated in a few days, then we will know more. Right now, very many things are possible.

   Even if the recordings themselves don't give a definitive answer to the cause, they can help eliminate many possibilities. Keep in mind though: with a failure at or near the rear pressure bulkhead - regardless of its cause - the cables to the recorders might have been severed quickly. Hopefully, the recordings continued at least long enough to detect or reject an explosion, for instance, or sounds that would lead to or eliminate other causes.

Consider also, the flight recorders are located in the tail, which fell away from the rest of the wreckage ...

So at some point it separated ... obviously there is not going to be any data past that point.

The early conclusions reported are consistent with what we'd expect of an early readout/playback, and there was nothing in the condition of the boxes in pictures we've seen to presume there would be any problems extracting data.

And it's just that - data. If the memory module is intact, you plug in a cable, and BAM! you have data.

From that point you can play back the audio and start analyzing data.

No reason to suspect they haven't already done that.

So what have they said? nothing really more than we already knew and suspected ...

No missile, and no distress call.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 95): I had the same question. If horizontal stabilizers fell off, that could explain upside down impact.

And it could potentially explain the rest of the breakup as well. I don't think I've ever heard of a plane suddenly losing its horizontal stabilizer; I can only imagine what that would do to the rest of the airframe, especially if it's coupled with other structural failures like loss of the aft pressure bulkhead and/or a large portion of the tail (as seems to have happened here). And let's not forget that a sudden decompression like that in itself is explosive - it's explosive enough to rip off a tail, which we've seen in other accidents even if not this one. Any damage that appears the result of an interior explosion is easily explainable by explosive decompression. In the absence of any residue indicating a bomb, I think you have to conclude that the "peeling" we see is simply the result of whatever explosive decompression occurred. Either that or it's just the result of other parts that came off a certain way that that skin was previously attached to.

I don't see anything in any of the photos that isn't explainable by explosive decompression. I think the question is mainly what caused both the decompression and the stabilizer to detach. That could still have multiple different answers.

For anyone who doesn't know the power of explosive decompression, watch this: http://youtu.be/4yG2h1aDB6k?t=3m48s

In that video, an airplane is pressurized on the ground to match the pressure differential when cruising. There was a tiny shape charge that was just enough to ensure that explosive decompression actually occurred (because it doesn't happen by chance or planes would be falling out of the sky all over the place). The explosion itself is all the result of decompression. Yes, that means the same theoretically could have been done to this Metrojet flight. But that's where testing for the chemical residue comes in. And while I'm not sure there are definitive statements on that yet, the "unofficial" word so far seems to be that no residue has been found yet.

Here is a thought. If this was an inflight breakup, but not from a missile, what about an onboard bomb? Remember Pan Am 103! What would the motive be? Think MH 17. Several years ago a Russian charter flight and a DHL 757 collided at high altitude over Germany. A Swiss air traffic controller was at least partly at fault. He was later shot and killed when he answered his door. The shooter was a Russian man who had lost his child on that flight. So this type of retaliation has happened in the recent past.

The families of the MH 17 victims certainly feel that Russia was responsible, even if indirectly. Since Russia will never be held accountable, why not retailate and take down one of their planes? I could be way off base, and I don't want to inflame the situation. But when I recalled the previous Russian charter, my brain started connecting the dots.

Traindoc

Quoting GlenP (Reply 99): I leave it to everyone to assess the report & judge for themselves, bearing in mind that it is not official.

What's strange is that the Egyptian aviation authority that is responsible for the communication of the progress of the investigation in this case makes no reference to the accident at all as far as I can see on their webpage. In any accident the best way to get information is from the authority itself, as the media will naturally be confusing and conflicting. That's why I tend to avoid the medias input and get it straight from the official authority. However in this case the only official information I have gotten is from the BEA, which is part of the investigation, but not responsible for the communication of it.

Anyway, the latest update is that a second team of 3 BEA investigators have been dispatched to the site.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 98):

To be VERY clear the HS have not been located.
Pictures posted yesterday were from the Algiers 2014 accident. Since retracted.

I would be very unsurprised to learn that HS may be discovered at the very start of the debris field, being amongst the first bits to leave the aircraft, and the furthest from the main debris.

When you think that the tail structure is often one of the few structures to survive more or less all still attached together, it explains why absence of HS is of so much interest, and potential import in explaining sequence of events.

FTR the supposed cracks on the rudder may be hyd leakage, on a poorly maintained aircraft, which eats away at paint. I'm no expert there but there is more at pprune.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 103): Since Russia will never be held accountable, why not retailate and take down one of their planes?

Neither dutch nor malaysian passengers on board here, and certainly not among the ramp workers at SSH.
And the russian man you mentioned did not bring down any swiss airliner, he stabbed the man who was in charge that night.

But i would not discount your idea if applied to some arabs who were bombarded by Russia in Syria.

[Edited 2015-11-02 11:47:52]

A bit more information on the aircraft:

Last C check was on the 18th of March 2014

Total flight hours: 57428

Total flight cycles: 21551

This is correct as of 31st of October 2015

Quoting GlenP (Reply 99): How much credence we give to unnamed sources on the investigating committee is debatable, but the Egyptian news outlet, Al Ahram is reporting that some info on the black box analysis has been released: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont....aspx

If that article is true, they better be rounding up everybody who loaded that aircraft with bags. If all the passengers were Russian or CIS, I question whether it was a suicide attacker. It would have to be something that was put on the plane by ground staff or a "package for a friend" situation, but I think the latter is unlikely as people are probably not stupid enough to do that.

Even though this was a charter and they rarely carry cargo, I wonder if there was any smuggled cargo on the plane with the purpose of dodging European sanctions on some goods. Are there any banned for import goods that would be a risk?

The Al Ahram article doesn't in any way give credence to or discredit any possibility other than that of a missile impact or mid-air collision, which I think we've pretty much ruled out in our discussions in any case.

The rest is pretty much a summary of what is known so far.

For those who've never travelled to Egypt, it should be pointed out that, even the BBC concedes, that airport security is on a par with that to be found in Europe & the idea that the first thing the need to do, on the basis of the information contained in the article isn't quite valid. Much of the information; i.e. that the aircraft was in excellent condition originates from the same source as the claim that it had to be an external impact, namely the airline & not the investigative committee.

So far there is not enough information to indicate a bomb was involved, any more than we can point with any degree of certainty to an alternative cause of the structural failure. The one thing we can be pretty certain of is that, due to the international nature of the team that has been assembled to investigate this accident, is that a thorough examination of the evidence will take place.

[Edited 2015-11-02 12:15:53]

The NTSB has learned that massive transparency in the very early stages, and disclosing what can be known in the big picture from the CVR and DFDR as soon as possible, does a lot to tamp down the kind of stupid speculation that rises in the media and aviation community after an accident like this.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get that kind of response from the Egypt authority. It's a good thing that the BEA is involved, but they aren't in a position independently to release stuff.

Under the American "party system", the airline would have been told to shut the hell up right at the beginning, or lose its place at the table. The kind of rank amateurism and ass-covering nonsense spewed by the airline got a lot of attention that it didn't deserve because the international media is used to the kind of orderly, transparent process in which what comes out has some credibility.

In this case, it's the Wild West, with government officials in the various countries and industry people saying any kind of crazy nonsense they want, and in the absence of leadership of the process and information from the main investigating authority, this non-information and speculation is being spewed all over the media.

The only people who are behaving correctly are folks like Airbus and the BEA, who are honoring the Developed World process and saying nothing until there is something to say. I think it will be a long time, if ever, for us to get much of substance that can be trusted. In the meantime, we are going to get the same kind of nonsense that we have had with a number of recent accidents in places that fly the same aircraft, but under very different conditions and procedures than the part of the world that first flew them, with predictably-different outcomes.

If an airline's level of sophistication is to say, before anything is known, that its pilots were good and the aircraft was properly-maintained and so it must have just fallen from the freakin' sky due to some external cause, those people shouldn't be carrying passengers on airplanes. Just appalling. It's like giving the keys to the family car to the thirteen year old. And the results are predictable.

(And I still think that a perfectly-viable accident sequence, despite what's in the media, is that there was some precipitating event, followed by pilot error, inducing a high-altitude upset and loss of control/stall. Those swings in altitude, if accurate, could be overcontrolling/improper-controlling by pilots, either with the aid of the computer or not. The Russian accident that occurred when the pilot's kid touched the controls was not directly because of the kid's actions; that was merely the precipitating event, which the copilot subsequently mismanaged -- he actually regained control from the precipitating incident and then, because of lack of understanding of the autopilot system's operation, managed to then-and-only-then induce an upset from which they did not recover.)

[Edited 2015-11-02 12:36:09]

[Edited 2015-11-02 13:18:05]

Quoting joejosh999 (Reply 105): To be VERY clear the HS have not been located.

You are right, they are NOT on the fotos ! But i hope they have been found by now. I also can't find any traces of the fuselage between wings to the tail.

A map of the debris field would be very helpful.

Quoting Lowbank (Reply 51): would you have a look closely at the fan set, i agree it was static when it hit the floor. look at the nose cone. it looks like it has heat damage with the paint looking blistered

Hi ! Yes that pic is puzzling, but we don't know where that fan disc was ( relative to the main wreckage ) and how it ended there.
Apart from a major explosive surge ( unlikely in my opinion ) I don't understand how the soot and burn marks could have happened.

Looking at new photos, the fuselage between the aft wing root and the tail isn't missing : it's in a vast number of pieces strewn across the desert, torn from their fittings, seats, bulklheads... etc...

The tailplane-cum-elevator hasn't been found yet, to my knowledge.

I think these days we should have cameras on the outside of the aircraft also feeding into the flight recorder. Then we wouldn't have to play this guessing game every time a plane crashes.

Quoting dmsolovyev (Reply 94):

Fully agree what you write!

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 113):

Maybe this will be a feature on future Aircrafts that recorded on the FDR!

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 111): I also can't find any traces of the fuselage between wings to the tail.

That part of the fuselage seems mixed in with other wreckage and more broken up than the forward part. But it does seem to be in some of the pictures we've seen.

The horizontal stabilizer has really got to be the focus at this point. Even if it has been found by now, it's clearly not where you'd expect it to be.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 112): Apart from a major explosive surge ( unlikely in my opinion ) I don't understand how the soot and burn marks could have happened.

I thought that too, but that shouldn't create enough yaw to do any structural damage to the tail. Although we have seen too many times where an improper response could lead to a disaster. Purely speculation, but I'd guess that the burned fan/spinner is simply the aftermath of something else that happened first.

I think the tail section separation (both before and after the RPB) is crucial, its just waiting until the investigators can determine exactly what caused the initial failure.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 110): Here, it's the Wild West

Western Malaysia?

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 113): I think these days we should have cameras on the outside of the aircraft also feeding into the flight recorder.

Then we'd be debating why it didn't show every angle.

Thanks Pihero,
I have to admit having seen the debris field its looking likely people arre concentrating on the correct area.

still dont understand the charing on the fan set.

Quoting enilria (Reply 117): Quoting wjcandee (Reply 110): Here, it's the Wild West Western Malaysia?

I changed it to, "In this case" to make the meaning more clear for those who might not have understood the meaning of "here". Hope that clarifies things. The point I made, obviously, is legitimate.

By the way, I just read this from the AP, quoting the Airline's director-of-something:

"Smirnov said the plane dropped 300 kph (186 mph) in speed and 1.5 kilometers (about 5,000 feet) in altitude one minute before it crashed Saturday." and

"Smirnov described the A321-200 as a reliable aircraft that would not fall into a spin even if the pilots made a grave error because its automatic systems would correct crew mistakes."

The first is interesting because it could denote something as simple as an engine malfunction (which was then mismanaged by the crew).

The second statement is bewildering in its cluelessness. We all know that autopilots disconnect when they become unable still to control the aircraft, and that knowledgeable human intervention is required. It's a classic symptom of automation complacency. Of course, this guy wasn't flying the plane. But, geez.

Another viable accident sequence therefore is: engine issues, not responded to properly by crew, autopilot attempts to maintain altitude/speed/whatever until it can no longer do so, and then says, "Your airplane, guys." Upon disconnecting, causes an upset that crew doesn't respond to properly. Corkscrew and crash. Damage to stabs, etc., reminiscent of China Airlines 6.

By the way, the common impression of China Airlines 6 is that, unbenknownst to the crew, the number 4 engine quit and the crew didn't notice it, while the autopilot maintained control until it couldn't and then disconnected, causing a loss of control that the captain finally overcame. It's worth reading the Wikipedia summary of what actually happned: the 15,000-hours-plus captain and FE knew immediately of the engine problem (it had flamed out twice before on earlier flights), and then didn't use a checklist on the restart procedure; the CPT instead just told the FE to restart it while leaving the autopilot on at FL410 (checklist required descent to FL300 before any restart attempt). It didn't relight, and nobody noticed that the autopilot was running the control wheel full left. Captain NEVER put in rudder to try to bring wings level. Nobody recognized the crazy attitude the plane was at, because of clouds. When they saw the attitude indicators, they assumed they were all malfunctioning -- bizarre. Only once they descended, out of control, below the cloud layer -- i.e. only when they had an actual horizon -- did they start properly to right the aircraft. God bless the 747, it didn't come apart before their efforts or as a result of their efforts despite going beyond 60-degrees and 5gs. Even then, the crew was going to just proceed to LAX and land there, whether for CYA reasons or just because they didn't appreciate initially the magnitude of what had just happened. In that incident, the rear part of the aircraft looked like swiss cheese.

Not that this is what happened, but it's another viable theory that indicates that we don't know anything until an actual authority releases meaningful information from the DFDR and CVR.

[Edited 2015-11-02 14:13:52]

Quoting litz (Reply 101): Consider also, the flight recorders are located in the tail, which fell away from the rest of the wreckage ... So at some point it separated ... obviously there is not going to be any data past that point.

Not good for the ghouls and the voyeurs : no intimate details from the CVR... No final words... tragic, aint'it ?

But in fact, the DFDR would have revealed what caused the breaking-up.
The rest is very easy for the investigators to re-create and analyze.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 120):

Pihero, what's your take on the ADSB data from FR24?

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119): The second statement is bewildering in its cluelessness. We all know that autopilots disconnect when they become unable still to control the aircraft, and that knowledgeable human intervention is required. It's a classic symptom of automation complacency. Of course, this guy wasn't flying the plane. But, geez.

This is not referring to the autopilot, its referring to the normal law and alternative law in the airbus' system logic. Normal law is, as it sounds the normal operation of the aircraft, but only when all power is lost and all back up systems have failed (alternative law, abnormal alternative law) will direct law come into play. This gives the pilot direct control of the horizontal stabiliser and rudder and even then it requires hydraulic pressure.

With respect, it's a bit clueless to assume that when the computer says no, its straight to manual flying in an Airbus.

Sandyb123

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119): The second statement is bewildering in its cluelessness. We all know that autopilots disconnect when they become unable still to control the aircraft, and that knowledgeable human intervention is required.

He's talking about the A321's built in protections under its flight control "laws". He's right that under normal circumstances, autopilot or not, the A321 would not allow itself to enter a spin.

However, that assumes that all parts of the airplane are present.

I'll leave it to others to discuss what it would take for the airplane to revert to alternate or direct law, but the accident sequence you describe would be exactly the kind of thing normal law was designed to prevent. So it would be a huge and previously undetected design flaw in the software of the airplane if that sequence is what happened; a design flaw that would affect every A321 worldwide (and probably A320's too).

This is why some of us have basically ruled out certain types of accident sequences; while maybe theoretically possible, they're just massively unlikely because of the way the software is designed. You're basically arguing that there's a huge bug in the system that's been present for 30 years and nobody's caught until now. Possible yes, but there are many more likely scenarios.

Also, your scenario does not account for the spread of the wreckage.

[Edited 2015-11-02 14:06:22]

Friends of ours left Sharm on Thursday on Monarch and they said the airport security there was virtually nil. The Egyptian officials were waving people through and showed a total lack of interest, or care about security.

The bags were cross checked on the tarmac randomly with some passengers, but not all.

In their words security there was pretty useless.

I suspect it might turn out to be a bomb loaded airside. I don't believe an A321 would simply break up without warning.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119): Another viable accident sequence therefore is: engine issues, not responded to properly by crew, autopilot attempts to maintain altitude/speed/whatever until it can no longer do so, and then says, "Your airplane, guys." Upon disconnecting, causes an upset that crew doesn't respond to properly. Corkscrew and crash. Damage to stabs, etc., reminiscent of China Airlines 6.

Short of an SR-71-style unstart (which requires an SR-71), there shouldn't be any engine issue that makes the airplane that uncontrollable. I really hope its not another case of poor pilot management of a survivable problem. The vertical speed changes, and what we know of a debris field seem to indicate rapid damage or separation of the horizontal stabilizer. Unfortunately, knowing more than that may require more analysis than the DFDR can provide, since I'm sure once the initial failure occurred, the rest started coming apart rather quickly.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 120): Not good for the ghouls and the voyeurs : no intimate details from the CVR... No final words... tragic, aint'it ?But in fact, the DFDR would have revealed what caused the breaking-up.The rest is very easy for the investigators to re-create and analyze.

I hope France is a party to the accident investigation, because if they're not, we may never know what happened 

IIRC, France has done the DFDR readout in most Airbus accidents because reading the data is anything but trivial...   There's an ICAO annex that states that the accident investigation bureau of the country of manufacture gets to be party to the accident investigation.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119): "Smirnov said the plane dropped 300 kph (186 mph) in speed and 1.5 kilometers (about 5,000 feet) in altitude one minute before it crashed Saturday." and

Isn't that info more likely from Flightstats or one of the ADS-B services and notoriously unreliable? I doubt they have analyzed any FDR data yet.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 119): Quoting enilria (Reply 117): Quoting wjcandee (Reply 110): Here, it's the Wild West Western Malaysia? I changed it to,

I was joking that the backward mess of "official" contradictory crash information would seem to have its epicenter in Malaysia.

Quoting GlenP (Reply 29): Sorry for the time difference incurred delay in responding to your post, however, I would ask whether you are aware that there is rather a lot of geography between Egypt, even the Sinai Peninsula, & Iraq?

Yeah, and I know you're right but damn.....who knows what they are capable of. I still think it's easier to walk a suicide bomber on board, and ............................

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 30): They claimed to have it shot down. You need some pretty advanced and sizeable equipment to shoot down a plane at that height. Equipment that would not go unnoticed and can't be transported so easily.

Plus, I think there would be missile tracks or other radar signatures.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 122): With respect, it's a bit clueless to assume that when the computer says no, its straight to manual flying in an Airbus.

I'm speaking in broad strokes. The fact is that the interplay between pilot and computer is complex in the Airbus, and it's glorious to someone who really understands and interacts with it properly, but the complexity requires comprehension, and the systems definitively do not prevent the pilots from mishandling an emergency. They just don't. (Otherwise, there's a certain Air France airplane that wouldn't be at the bottom of the Atlantic. In that case, the systems didn't prevent a completely-rookieish series of actions from the PF, actions that if the Captain had retaken his own seat and told him to keep his goddamn hands off the controls, we never would have heard about.)

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 126): I hope France is a party to the accident investigation, because if they're not, we may never know what happened  IIRC, France has done the DFDR readout in most Airbus accidents because reading the data is anything but trivial...   There's an ICAO annex that states that the accident investigation bureau of the country of manufacture gets to be party to the accident investigation.

The BEA is in it, but they are doing the right thing and saying nothing until there is something to say. So is Airbus.

Quoting enilria (Reply 127): I was joking that the backward mess of "official" contradictory crash information would seem to have its epicenter in Malaysia.

Got it. That did cross my mind, but assuming humour is involved is often erroneous here...   Thanks for the correction.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 126): I hope France is a party to the accident investigation, because if they're not, we may never know what happened

Two BEA teams are already in Egypt

Quoting enilria (Reply 127): Isn't that info more likely from Flightstats or one of the ADS-B services and notoriously unreliable? I doubt they have analyzed any FDR data yet.

True that. Reinforces the point that their comments were stupid and would have gotten them kicked off the inquiry in the US. However, it just triggered in my mind a potential additional sequence, only to point out that we know nothing at this point.

And by the way, I'm far from persuaded that there isn't a ton of very useful info on the CVR. The unconfirmed junk we have heard so far smacked of politico weaseling designed to confuse knowledgeless media.

[Edited 2015-11-02 14:29:13]

Quoting WPIAeroGuy (Reply 125): Short of an SR-71-style unstart (which requires an SR-71), there shouldn't be any engine issue that makes the airplane that uncontrollable. I really hope its not another case of poor pilot management of a survivable problem.

The latter is what I was suggesting, not the former. I completely agree with your first statement.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 130): The BEA is in it, but they are doing the right thing and saying nothing until there is something to say. So is Airbus.

I expect the Egyptian CAA to release some information in due time, but they are under no obligation to release the preliminary report to the public, so the full details of the accident may not be known until the release of the final report.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 126): I hope France is a party to the accident investigation, because if they're not, we may never know what happened

I guess I need to repeat it again.

According to Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation:

- Egypt (state of occurrence) leads the investigation (unless delegated, which hasn't happened)
- France (state of design) is a required party
- Germany (state of manufacture) is a required party
- Russia (state of operator) is a required party
- Ireland (state of registry) is required to provide any relevant information
- Any other state whose nationals were pax is entitled to observer status (Ukraine)

So Egypt, France, Germany and Russia are parties. "State of manufacture" is usually interpreted to include the engine manufacturer, if different from the airframe manufacturer.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 130): The BEA is in it, but they are doing the right thing and saying nothing until there is something to say. So is Airbus.

Under Annex 13, the state leading the investigation is the only party that can release information.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 137):

Do you know by any chance where? Nothing on the Egyptian CAAs website

Quoting dmsolovyev (Reply 94): Sorry if it was mentioned before, but some russian media reported that the involved a/c underwent a "D" Check in 2014 (link). That was not so long ago. I suppose if the airframe had any evident structural issues, they would have been fixed.

Does any check actually involve "Oh, I see the plane has a repair here and there... let's check if the repair from ten years ago has been actually made correctly..."? Or do they trust the documentation from ten years ago?

I suppose a D check involves looking for fatigue and cracks just anywhere, so my question would be moot...


David

Quoting WPIAeroGuy (Reply 125): Short of an SR-71-style unstart (which requires an SR-71), there shouldn't be any engine issue that makes the airplane that uncontrollable. I really hope its not another case of poor pilot management of a survivable problem. The vertical speed changes, and what we know of a debris field seem to indicate rapid damage or separation of the horizontal stabilizer. Unfortunately, knowing more than that may require more analysis than the DFDR can provide, since I'm sure once the initial failure occurred, the rest started coming apart rather quickly.

You needs to read QF32 more closely, had one part of the disc been a degree different the whole outcome would have been different. The disc part would go into the fuselage and clean out the other side. It has happened once but luckily the plane was in the ground. The disc part ended up in embedded in the engine after passing clean through the plane.
However after seeing the debris field I don't think that's what has happened here, although I was thinking that at first trying to fathom out the burnt fan set.
That has really got me stumped.

I did a search in this thread for the word 'forbes' and nothing came up. This is an interesting article form Forbes suggesting that the executives and MetroJet should be barred from making comments about the investigation.

Egypt does not have a good track record on transparency so we will see the result.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...tims-deserve-proper-investigation/

tortugamon

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 136): So Egypt, France, Germany and Russia are parties.

The AAIU also sent a team

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/868

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 135): I expect the Egyptian CAA to release some information in due time, but they are under no obligation to release the preliminary report to the public, so the full details of the accident may not be known until the release of the final report.

Hopefully anything coming out of Egypt is more believable than their take on EgyptAir 990...

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 136): So Egypt, France, Germany and Russia are parties. "State of manufacture" is usually interpreted to include the engine manufacturer, if different from the airframe manufacturer.

So by this criteria, the US should also be in on it (for the engines only, perhaps?). Both CFM and IAE are 50% US  

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 142): The AAIU also sent a team

Thanks for that. I wondered why they hadn't been mentioned - as the state of registry, they would have data on certification of repairs to the pressure bulkhead, compliance with ADs, etc.

It's surprising to me that the HS hasn't been located. as it seems obvious evidence. Same for the pressure bulkhead (unless I'm misinterpreting the photos published thus far).

I'm still thinking (Pihero, correct me if I'm missing something) a progressive rupture of the rear pressure bulkhead, resulting in loss of HS (and perhaps VS, given the change in heading) control due to wiring harness severance, followed by loss of the empennage structure shortly before impact. I'm offering no opinion on the pressure bulkhead rupture (i.e. faulty repair, or explosive device in the lavatory).

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 144): So by this criteria, the US should also be in on it (for the engines only, perhaps?). Both CFM and IAE are 50% US

IAE is complicated. Incorporated in Switzerland. Shareholding is 25% U.S., 25% Switzerland, 25% Germany, 25% Japan. I've heard that IAE has accepted representation by the Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung (BFU), Germany's air transportation safety authority.

Quoting Lowbank (Reply 140): You needs to read QF32 more closely, had one part of the disc been a degree different the whole outcome would have been different. The disc part would go into the fuselage and clean out the other side. It has happened once but luckily the plane was in the ground. The disc part ended up in embedded in the engine after passing clean through the plane.

I was actually thinking about QF32 when writing that. I agree that systems-wise a lot can be damaged with an uncontained engine failure, as demonstrated by QF32 and DL1288. I was more thinking that aerodynamically an engine failure alone won't upset the aircraft, although the Lauda crash might be one example to the contrary. Fire and collateral damage are obviously a major concern. I agree though from the limited evidenced this doesn't seem to be the cause.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 136): I guess I need to repeat it again.

No you don't. The ICAO process is clear, but its effect is entirely-dependent upon the conduct of the state of occurrence. If transparency is a value there, then one result. If it isn't, than another.

I think that's the point people were making.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 143): Hopefully anything coming out of Egypt is more believable than their take on EgyptAir 990...

Years from now, other parties will have the right to publish their own analysis, as Egypt did with EgyptAir 990. But in terms of hard truths making the news cycle, that's not a particularly-reassuring schedule.

That said, Egypt doesn't have much of a dog in this hunt, so there isn't a currently-obvious axe that they have to grind. However, one can't expect the level of speed and transparency that the BEA or other authority would bring.

There really are places in the world where (and people in otherwise-sophisticated cultures to whom) a satisfactory explanation is that a "technical fault" (mechanical issue) caused the plane to fall out of the sky and that's that.

[Edited 2015-11-02 15:48:21]