So, as the CVR recorded a 'bang' and based on the photos we have seen, it seems almost certain that there was some sort of mid-air fire.
With all the theories around structural failure expounded, can anyone give a rationale for a mid-air fire?
Surely the only potential explosive fuel would be jet fuel. But kerosene only ignites easily in atomised form and where there is plenty of oxygen available. At FL310 oxygen levels are at about 6.5% (c/f 21% at sea level). Could sparks from structural failure really be sufficient to ignite kersone given the rush of air from massive sudden decompression and the air stream of say 400kts that would suck sparks away from the aircraft almost instantaneously? And that would assume that kerosene was escaping in large enough quantities following a structural failure.
I can't think of a single example of serious structural failure and/or decompression that resulted in a mid-air fire. Loss of control, yes. Fire, no.
Speedbird 911 (Japan 1966) no mid-air fire
Braniff 250 (USA 1966) no mid-air fire
Lake Central 250 (USA 1967) no mid-air fire
BEA 706 (Belgium 1971) no mid-air fire
AA 96 (USA 1972) no mid-air fire
Turkish 981 (France 1974) no mid-air fire
AA 191 (USA 1979) no mid-air fire (despite huge fuel stream from port wing at low altitude)
JAL 123 (Japan 1985) no mid-air fire
United 811 (over Pacific 1988) no mid-air fire
El Al 1862 (Netherlands 1992) no mid-air fire
China Air 611 (Taiwan 2002) no mid-air fire
Surely, the only possible 'accidental' cause could be a catastrophic engine fire combined with simultaneous damage to the fuselage and fuel tanks, which would surely have had to include wing tanks?
But even then would the aircraft not have continued under normal flight for at least half a minute?
Am I missing something?