Time to consider putting all luggage into those large explosion-proof zipped hold bags that were shown recently. I am guessing they must be expensive, but would they have helped in this case?

hear is a video of it being tested Aircraft 'bomb bag' limits on board explosion impact - BBC News

they need to think ahead and consider how they would defeat it because nothing 100% certain, because the terrorist will think about it that you can be certain of.

Ah, that's the one, oldoberon. Many thanks. Some thought-provoking footage there.

It would seem that by now the investigators have a very good idea where the first rupture occurred as well as the subsequent break-up and damages to all recovered major objects. If it was a bomb they probably have a good idea of what type and if among the luggage where and how it got stowed.

What follows is food for the press and those that are patient.

From the post by FDMII #1989

From the Hudson A320 view of the Port THS pivots, the attachment point to the fuselage of the twin supports is pictured in the lower photo of the Metrojet framed by the inverted V of the cables - showing a broken support.

If this was the initial failure point, then downward pressure on the THS would rotate the THS about the remaining Starboard pivot and the jackscrew altering the relative angle of attack more of the Starboard THS creating a twisting effect on the rear fuselage.

The thread seems to be going round and round in circles again.

@ everyone discussing a possible control surface failure

Please try to explain how such a failure could have brought about the breaking of the rear fuselage. While intact, the fuselage (especially if pressurized) is very strong and resilient. It will not break up due to aerodynamic forces even in unusual attitudes. It is pointless to discuss any potential failures in the tail plane without addressing this. I believe any rapid overload on the control surfaces would break them first before the fuselage itself could de damaged.

@ everyone discussing a bomb

If it was a bomb as suspected, then all the subsequent break-up sequence is just an academic engineering exercise with no bearing on the cause.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the rear fuselage structure to be able to add anything to the conversation, but perhaps someone with more knowledge could address that barring a bomb, what structural failure (if any possible) would be required to cause an instantaneous catastrophic failure and departure of the tail. My understanding is that the fracture of any single load bearing beam would not be sufficient, the remaining beams have sufficiend design strength margin to take over the increased load (just look at the Aloha convertible, where more than 50% of the fuselage structure was missing yet it still held together).

Islay

You were asking for a week old pic with tail patch

Here it is

http://cdn1.share.slickpic.com/u/Ana...trunin/web.jpg

rem aloha convertible
 

#2006 (permalink)

Not at all comparable - the skin unwrapped but all the load carrying stringersm and floor beams and circumferentials were intact

IN an explosion as postulated, depending on location, several major members would likely be destroyed. If carefully located a small explosive could sever for example a major structure member in the tail section and get the result. Or even poor maintenancece - as the 747 over japan demonstrated re tail .

@ CONSO

Yes of course, an explosion will produce the results we are seeing. I'd be more interested if anyone is able to explain what we see in the rear fuselage with only a structural failure, that is why I brought up Aloha as a contrasting comparison.

aloha analogy
 

I was thinking about the same. Aloha's initial event that caused shedding of all cabin skin started from roof and progressed rear and downwards until stopped by stronger fuselage-floor interconnection. Surprisingly noone seated didn't get unjured by flying parts. it means everything was peeled outward.
with metrojet a321 initial breakup should have started at the floor level, on the left side. Not far from wings. Thus peeling below and above floor level destroyed floor as well throwing out seats one by one.

Unfortunately this patch is under the tail remnants so not visible. Still no explanation which forces can make this huge rupture above HS:

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4402...855dd22_XL.jpg

Unnamed source in RF government said yesterday, after meeting with prime-minister at which it was mentioned that flights suspension to Egypt will not be short one (literally "possible be for years" and "for other destinations too"), that "disaster was a result of Egyptian secret services betrayal" and that "unauthorized personal was allowed to the plane".

Take it with great pinch of salt, but it was originated from Kommersant, not any yellow paper...

PS: original article a bit more sober than this short squeeze but it's like they begin to cite it in the media... Go figure.

A small explosive in that case would need to be placed deliberately or the placement was down to chance.

@kulverstukas - Kommersant article
 

(original article in Russian - my translation)

Russian investigators still have to find formal grounds for the re-qualification of this case as a criminal case under Art. 205 of the Criminal Code ("Terrorist Act"). Test results from the swabs and scrapings of plane fragments to detect the presence of traces of explosives will at least take a week. Only then do we know if we can talk about a terrorist attack.

++
So at this stage it is still a safety investigation and not a formal criminal investigation (with a parallel running, but subordinate safety investigation).

In today's papers it is reported that the 4 UK charter airlines will resume flights not before 25th Nov and BA on 23rd Nov. Baggage for UK passengers to be flown home by Egyptair. The Sharm baggage storage is now full and tourist are to leave baggage at their hotels.

In the same report it states that hotel staff are being investigated with suspicion that a bomb could have been placed in Russian baggage at the hotel.

If the VS and HS broke first and that was the Reason for downing, can someone explain what can be see here at Engine and Fan and what is the Reason for that?


http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...li6u428cmk.jpg

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...lz2ig7nsh5.jpg

Is it conceivable there was sufficiently hot reverse gas flow while tumbling to cause that?

It's an engine that has been involved in a fire and dropped from 30,000 ft.
One could assume that in the case of a fire starting in the engine itself then the fan (from the front) would not show such fire evidence.
Also looks as if the engine itself was not destroyed by intense heat.

FF

HS & VS break off first?
 

It is highly unlikely that VS and HS were broken off first by aerodynamic forces. - trailing edges of VS and HS. T
Technically it is impossible while wings are still attached to the plane and fuselage is more or less intact. Planes intact body plus Fly by Wire protection does not allow such a sudden changes in tail attitude against airflow.

Picking up on previous posts by Sardak, FDMII & DeRated...

Left and right HS pivot mounts? If so, then as noted previously left side appears broken off at the top, right side appears to be sticking out at 90 degrees.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTceRbqWsAA2ZP6.jpg