Flightradar uses ADS-B and we have the readout showing unusually high speed after takeoff well
below 10000 feet(normal altitude for speed restriction).Its GPS derived and we can trust it.
I would not say that "we can trust it", but with a grain of salt (and using the wind from the METAR) it allows a rough estimation of the speed range the aircraft was in, and allows to exclude certain scenario.
And I agree that speed was higher than what you would normally expect, however taking into account the unreliable airspeed, it is still within the safe range, and if in doubt a bit more is better than not enough speed, so it would be understandible if the pilot selects pitch and power figures at the higher end of the speed range, and would round up a few memory numbers...
A/C had known UAS event day before but it was controlled by crew and they landed safely.It is written up and signed
off as cleared.
A/C takes off again next day and suffers another UAS event,this time proving unrecoverable.
Conclusion: diagnosis and/or rectification work by maintenance failed to clear problem or worse still exacerbated problem.
It is not uncommon, that the first step of troubleshooting is unsuccessful.
You find a lot of "if the problem persists" wording in troubleshooting manuals, this is why it is not calles troublesolving manual...
There should always be enough redundancy and safety margin to encounter any problem a second time.
Flying the 737 Classic series solely on standby flight instruments is a most demanding exercise in instrument flying - especially in IMC.
This accident happened in VMC in daylight conditions. Returning to an airport under those conditions should not be too demanding for any licensed pilot on a modern certified aircraft.
Is the 737 known for issues with water in the pneumatic instrument lines? Did the aircraft experience severe rain recently? Does the 737 Max pitot/static system differ significantly from the NG ("Smart probes" instead of pipes...)?